GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, GARNISHEE, AND ZACK SMART, APPELLANTS,
v.
KENNY HARRIS, APPELLEE; GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, GARNISHEE, AND ZACK SMART, APPELLANTS, V. RUBY MASKER, 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.
In these garnishment proceedings, the trial court entered summary judgments against an insurance company based on damages judgments against the insured. The appellate court had reversed those underlying damages judgments after the garnishment judgments were entered, creating a situation where the garnishment judgments were based on reversed judgments. The court remanded for dismissal despite finding no technical error in the trial court's entry of the garnishment judgments.
The court affirmed that the trial court did not commit technical error in entering the summary judgments at the time they were entered, since the underlying damages judgments were then valid and unreversed. However, the court held that the insurance company's contention that final determination is stayed by appeal is incorrect—the policy clearly contemplates final determination when a trial court enters judgment after actual trial, regardless of whether an appeal is pending. Consequently, because the garnishment judgments are based wholly on judgments the appellate court has now reversed, the court remanded for dismissal of the garnishment proceedings.
“Until reversed or vacated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the latter judgments were valid and, being unsuperseded, were enforceable by garnishment proceedings or otherwise.”
Establishes that the trial court did not err in entering garnishment judgments when the underlying damages judgments were still valid and unreversed at that time.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZack Smart was found liable in two automobile accident cases, with judgments entered in favor of Kenny Harris and Ruby Masker. While Smart appealed th…
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 Supersedeas Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
These appeals are from summary judgments in garnishment proceedings in favor of appellees against the appellant insurance company. The appellees had secured judgments for damages in two automobile accident cases against the appellant, Zack Smart, who appealed those judgments to this court. On July 9, 1959, we reversed those judgments. See Smart v. Masker, Fla.App., 113 So.2d 414, and Smart v. Harris, Fla.App., 113 So.2d 418.
In the meantime, during the pendency of those appeals to this Court, Smart and the appellant insurance company, a public liability carrier, failed to supersede the judgments and the appellees filed garnishment proceedings in the Circuit Court of Volusia County against the insurance company on the basis of the judgments for damages. That Court entered summary judgments in favor of appellees, which summary judgments are the subject of the present appeals.
*45We cannot say that the Circuit Judge committed error in entering the summary judgments as of the time he entered them, one of them on March 24, 1959, and the other on April 14, 1959. It was not until July 7, 1959, that we reversed the damages judgments that were the basis for the garnishment proceedings. Therefore, when the garnishment summary judgments were entered in March and April, the damages judgments were not only unsuper-seded but unreversed. Until reversed or vacated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the latter judgments were valid and, being unsuperseded, were enforceable by garnishment proceedings or otherwise.
The appellant insurance company contends, however, that it was not liable on the damages judgments because its liability policy covering the insured, Smart, contains this provision:
“No action shall be filed against the company * * * until the amount of the insured’s obligation to pay shall have been finally determined either by judgment against the insured after actual trial or by written agreement of the insured, the claimant and the company.”
This appellant’s contention is that the final determination of the insured’s liability is, under the quoted provision, “stayed by a valid appeal to the appropriate Appellate Court, especially when an appeal is a matter of right.”
We cannot agree with this contention, for we believe that the quoted provision clearly contemplates that there may be a final determination of an insured’s liability when the trial court enters a judgment against the insured after an actual trial, regardless of whether an appeal is taken or not.
We, therefore, find ourselves in a position on these appeals in which we cannot find that the trial court committed error in entering the summary judgments in garnishment, yet we are convinced that it would amount to a grave miscarriage of justice to allow those judgments to stand under the circumstances. Inasmuch as those judgments are based wholly upon the judgments which this Court has reversed, justice under the law requires that we remand these causes to the trial court with directions forthwith to dismiss these garnishment proceedings. It is so ordered.
WIGGINTON, Chief Judge, and STUR-GIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Quarrier, 175 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…it according to law. This is not to say that we will fail to apply the equitable principles of the within cited General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation case [General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v. Harris, Fla.App. 1960, 117 So. 2d 44] in those instances where, in the regular order of handling the business of this court, a similar situation develops.” On the same day that we filed our opinion in the Driscoll case, we granted a motion to quash the Appeal in American Fire and Casu…
-
Am. S. Ins. Co. v. Driscoll, 125 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…eds to payment of the judgments. The defenses interposed therein present the same matters, including the identical policy provisions, that were considered by this court in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v. Harris, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 44, and by the Third District Court of Appeal in Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Company v. Wilson, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 230, and again by this court in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co., Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 448. In reliance t…
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co., Inc., 120 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…ed from is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that it be set aside and the proceedings dismissed. Reversed. STURGIS and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur. . General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v. Harris, Fla.App. 1960, 117 So. 2d 44. . Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Company v. Wilson, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 230.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bennie LE REA v. State, 113 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Zack Smart v. Masker, 113 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Zack Smart v. Harris, 113 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)