BARTH SATULOFF, C.P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court inappropriately granted summary judgment because factual issues remain regarding the amount due for business interruption damages.
[1] Summary judgment is inappropriate when genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the amount of damages due.
[2] A plaintiff establishes a right to recover business interruption damages as a matter of law when the underlying conditions for such damages are met.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff purchased business owner's insurance, and his property was stolen. The insurer paid for some claims but disputed business interruption damag…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Barth Satuloff, the plaintiff in a suit for breach of an insurance contract, appeals from a final order' granting American Reliance Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse.
Satuloff, a certified public accountant, purchased business owner’s insurance through American Reliance. On October 23, 1991, his computers and printers were stolen. Satu-loff submitted claims to American Reliance for the cost of replacing the stolen equipment, the loss of “business income,” and the cost of data restoration. The claim for the stolen equipment was paid; American Reb-anee now concedes that it also owes Satuloff a fixed amount of $4,272.75 for data restoration.1 The remaining claim for business interruption damages is in dispute.
As a matter of law, Satuloff has estab-bshed his right to recover business interruption damages. See American Medical Imaging Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 949 F. 2d 690 (3d Cir.1991); Eisenson v. Home Ins. Co., 84 F.Supp. 41 (N.D.Fla.1949), aff'd, 181 F. 2d 416 (5th Cir.1950). However, factual issues remain as to the amount due for the business interruption Satuloff experienced. Under these circumstances, the trial court inappropriately granted summary judgment. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985) (noting that summary judgment is inappropriate “unless the facts are so crystallized” that only questions of law remain); Chittenden v. Florida Power & Light Co., 600 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding that summary judgment is inappropriate where genuine issues of material fact remain).
We therefore reverse and remand only for the purpose of determining the amount of damages to which Satuloff is entitled for his business interruption claim.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. Satuloff rejected the insurer’s tender of a settlement for data restoration because American Reliance had combined the amount admittedly due for data restoration with the disputed amount for loss of business income.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bane v. Consuella Kathleen Bane, 775 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2000)…the Second District held that attorney’s fees could not be awarded in a domestic violence injunction case. The First and Third Districts have reached the same conclusion.' See Lewis v. Lewis, 689 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Abraham v. Abraham, 700 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In reaching this determination, the court in Lewis made clear that the domestic violence injunction proceedings were not actions under chapter 61, but were instead separate proceedings under chapter 741, Florida Statues, which do…
-
DE Luca v. de Luca, 722 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ility to pay $3,500 in combined temporary child support and alimony. We find that this combined award exceeding his monthly net income was clearly an abuse of discretion. See, Miller v. Miller, 707 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Abraham v. Abraham, 700 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Of the $3,500 combined award, $1,090 was temporary child support and $2,410 was temporary alimony. We find that the trial court properly followed the child support guidelines for two children with a household net income of $3,30…
-
Ratigan v. Stone, 947 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…understand the trial courts frustration and outrage, there was no statutory authority to award attorneys fees as sanctions in the separately-filed domestic violence case. See Belmont v. Belmont, 761 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Abraham v. Abraham, 700 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 693 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Lewis v. Lewis, 689 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Therefore, we reverse the award of attorneys fees award as sanctions to Labiner. Accordingly, we affirm the amend…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Am. Med. Imaging Corp. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 949 F.2d 690 (3d Cir. 1991)
- Home Ins. Co. v. Eisenson, 181 F.2d 416 (5th Cir. 1950)
- Chittenden v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 600 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Sprague v. Stadler Assocs., Inc., 600 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)