LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
RAMDAS AND CHITRA BHANDARI, APPELLEES
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.
Lexington Insurance Company's appeal of a judgment for insureds Ramdas and Chitra Bhandari is affirmed in part (no material misrepresentations found) and reversed in part (prejudgment interest award reversed, with interest to run from appraisal award date instead).
An insurer cannot recover insurance proceeds based on alleged material misrepresentations when the record does not demonstrate any material misrepresentations by the insureds, and prejudgment interest is not recoverable from the date of loss but only from the date of appraisal award.
[1] An insurer seeking to recover insurance proceeds based on alleged material misrepresentations must establish such misrepresentations as a matter of law; summary judgment…
[2] Prejudgment interest in insurance disputes runs from the date of the appraisal award rather than from the date of loss.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLexington Insurance Company sued insureds Ramdas and Chitra Bhandari for breach of contract and return of insurance proceeds, alleging material misrep…
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 Date Of Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Lexington Insurance Company appeals a final judgment in favor of insureds Ram-das and Chitra Bhandari. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.
Lexington sued the Bhandaris for breach of contract and return of insurance proceeds based on their alleged material misrepresentations on a supplemental loss claim. The trial court properly granted summary judgment as the record does not show any material misrepresentations by the insureds. Cf. Wong Ken v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 685 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (summary judgment proper as to whether insured made material misrepresentation as a matter of law). We, therefore, affirm that portion of the judgment. However, we reverse the prejudgment interest award. Insureds are not entitled to pre-judgment interest from the date of the loss under the circumstances of this case. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Blanco, 791 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 790 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review granted, No. SC01-1622, 805 So. 2d 804 (Fla. Jan. 15, 2002); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alvarez, 785 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(holding that Aries Ins. Co. v. Hercas Corp., 781 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), does not conflict with Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Lugassy, 593 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)), review denied, 800 So. 2d 612 (Fla.2001). On remand, the trial court shall award interest from the date of the appraisal award.
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part; and cause remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Rosalind Virgil v. State, 884 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…(1995), a defendant cannot be sentenced as a habitual felony offender for violating section 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance. See, e.g., Roberts v. State, 753 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Woods v. State, 807 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). This includes the offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. See Roberts, 753 So. 2d at 137-38; Ishmael v. State, 735 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Because [*374] the habitual felony offender statute prohi…
-
Blending Hughes v. State, 850 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…dicate crimes relied upon by the court in sentencing appellant are offenses relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance, appellant did not qualify for an enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute. See Woods v. State, 807 So. 2d 727, 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Because the appellant was improperly habitualized, we reverse and remand to the trial court for resentencing. If, however, the appellant’s plea was predicated upon habitualization, the trial court must permit the state to…
-
Jones v. State, 881 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…s the drug trafficking conviction falls under section 893.135, not section 893.13, Jones’s sentence as a habitual offender meets the requirement that at least one prior felony conviction not be a violation of section 893.13. See also Woods v. State, 807 So. 2d 727, 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Affirmed. . See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c) ("If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treat [*585] ed as if the proper remedy had been sought.... ”).…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- KEN v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 685 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Indep. Fire Ins. Co. v. Jacques Lugassy and Debra Lugassy, 593 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 790 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Roberto and Maria Blanco, 791 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Mellado v. Europa Cruises Corp., 785 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Chiverton v. Republic Indus., 781 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- The Aries Ins. Co. v. Hercas Corp., 781 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alvarez, 785 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)