JOSEPH F. VALVERDE, III, PETITIONER,

v.

HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Tobin v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 948 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 2006)
  …trict court determined that the claimants were entitled to a summary judgment on the issue of coverage under the terms of the insurance contract based upon the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Perez v. Michigan Mutual Insurance Co., 723 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), which was predicated upon the determination that persons in the position of these claimants are “named insureds” under this contract. However, notwithstanding the determination of the issue of coverage and the definition of “name…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Weiss, 790 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
  …question of law. See Central Cold Storage, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). An unambiguous contract of insurance does not require construction, and must be given effect as written. See Perez v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 723 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The law is well settled that a business auto policy such as the one at issue here does not provide coverage for officers, unless the person is within a covered vehicle. See [*477] Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bartoszewicz, 404 So.…
• Tobin v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 398 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2005)
  …uling on certain summary judgment motions, the district court concluded that Florida law governs the interpretation of the policy. The court further acknowledged that a Florida intermediate appellate decision in Perez v. Michigan Mutual Ins. Co., 723 So. 2d 849 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999), held that a retail lessee of Ford was covered by the same Michigan Mutual policy at issue here. The Florida court in Perez emphasized that Item 1 of the auto supplement lists the “Named Insured” as “Ford Motor Company, its U…

Authorities Cited

• Hendrix v. Singletary, 717 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
• Finch v. State, 717 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)