FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM A. CONOVER, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1996-11-15
No. 95-2154
DAUKSCH, COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
682 So. 2d 709 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1996)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for structures more than 150 feet from the dwelling applied, and coverage was not present.


Facts & Procedural History

A shed on the insured's property was damaged by a windstorm after an amendment excluded coverage for structures beyond 150 feet from the dwelling. The…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company [“Farm Bureau”], appeals from an adverse judgment finding coverage for a shed on its insured’s property. We reverse because the shed was excluded from coverage under the clear language of the policy.

William Conover’s shed was severely damaged by a windstorm after the effective date of an amendment to his insurance policy. The amendment excluded coverage for structures more than 150 feet from any exterior wall of the insured’s dwelling. Conover did not assert below that the language was ambiguous, and, in fact, submitted a verdict form asking the jury to determine whether there was coverage “by the specific terms of the contract.” The jury found there was coverage, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly.

Given Conover’s pre-trial admission that the shed was outside the 150 foot range of coverage, the jury’s finding of coverage was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Farm Bureau’s motion for directed verdict should have been granted. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment for Farm Bureau.

REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.

DAUKSCH, COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw