SIMKINS INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LEXINGTON 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 Third District affirmed summary judgment for Lexington Insurance, holding that Simkins, as mortgagee rather than assignee, was not entitled to insurance proceeds and that a U.C.C. security interest claim raised only in a footnote was not properly presented as a point on appeal.
A mortgagee is not entitled to insurance proceeds under the policy terms, and a claim not properly presented as a point on appeal will not be considered.
[1] A claim presented only in a footnote of an appellate brief does not constitute a properly presented point on appeal and will not be considered.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimkins Industries held a mortgage interest in property insured by Lexington Insurance. Simkins sought insurance proceeds for damage to hotel contents…
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 Proceeds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal recurs upon a mandate issued by the Supreme Court of Florida on February 12, 1998. We vacate our previous opinion recorded at 688 So. 2d 348, and conform in all respects to the opinion of the Supreme Court recorded at 704 So. 2d 1384 (Fla.1998). As directed by that opinion and mandate, we now consider “issues previously raised and left unresolved” in our prior opinion.
We hereby affirm the summary judgment for Lexington on the remaining points presented. We agree with Lexington that Simkins was only entitled to rights arising as a mortgagee rather than as an assignee and that, under the insurance policy, mortgagee Simkins was not entitled to the proceeds at issue here. As in our original opinion, we reject Simkins’ claim that it was entitled to recover for damage to certain hotel contents because they were asbestos contaminated. We refuse to consider Simkins’ claim that it is entitled to recover its security interest under the U.C.C., because Simkins did not present that as a point on .appeal in the original appearance before this court. Although it is true that there is a reference to the matter in Simkins’ initial brief, it is only by way of a footnote. Such treatment does not elevate the matter to a point on appeal. It would be unfair to Lexington for us to consider the U.C.C. claim at this point. Consequently, we reject the U.C.C. argument.
Accordingly, Lexington’s judgment against Simkins is affirmed in all respects, in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court and with final resolution of remaining issues today.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…he absence of any further argument as to why this order was erroneous or an abuse of the trial court's discretion. In the absence of any such argument, we deem the appeal of this order to be abandoned. See Simkins Indus., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 714 So. 2d 1092, 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Raskin v. Community Blood Centers of South Fla., Inc., 699 So. 2d 1014, 1016-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). . The remaining operative provisions of the agreement addressed alimony and expenses related to the marital residence.…
-
Brown v. State of Fla. & Tina Lasonya Brown v. Mark S. Inch, 304 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2020)
-
Shobola v. Joyela Shobola (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…or review); Drejka v. State, 330 So. 3d 1055, 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) ("An appellant who presents no argument as to why a trial court's ruling is incorrect on an issue has abandoned the issue . . . ."); see also Simkins Indus. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 714 So. 2d 1092, 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (stating that referring to a matter "only by way of a footnote . . . does not elevate the matter to a point on appeal"). However—as Husband acknowledges in his briefing and Wife acknowledged in response to Husband's motion f…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lexington Ins. Co. v. Simkins Indus., Inc., 704 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1998)
- Simkins Indus., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 688 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)