JOHN W. ANDREWS AND SUE ANDREWS, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed directed verdict for insurance company on vacancy exclusion clause, holding that whether rental dwelling was vacant presented a jury question rather than a matter of law.
Whether a dwelling was vacant for purposes of an insurance exclusion clause is a jury question when evidence permits different reasonable conclusions.
[1] Whether a dwelling is vacant for purposes of an insurance policy exclusion clause is a jury question when the evidence permits different reasonable conclusions, even if t…
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 intelligenceThe Andrews owned property used as a rental residential dwelling covered by a USAA insurance policy that excluded coverage for loss if the dwelling ha…
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 Directed Verdict Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.
John W. Andrews and Sue Andrews appeal the directed verdict entered in favor of United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in their action against USAA for breach of the insurance contract covering property they used as a rental residential dwelling. We reverse.
USAA moved for a directed verdict on the issue of whether the Andrews’ property was vacant for purposes of the following clause, which excluded coverage for “loss on the Described Location if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss. A dwelling being constructed is not considered vacant.” In directing a verdict in favor of USAA, the trial court found that the dwelling was not being constructed and that it was vacant. While the trial court correctly directed a verdict on the issue of whether the dwelling was being constructed, it abused its discretion in directing a verdict on the issue of whether the dwelling was vacant because different conclusions can be drawn from the evidence in this case on that issue. See Moisan v. Frank K. Kriz, Jr., M.D., P.A., 531 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Thus, whether the Andrews’ dwelling was vacant was an issue for the jury to decide.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ. Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moisan v. Frank K. Kriz, JR., M.D., P.A., 531 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)