BERDIE MAE ADKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
FLOYD R. EMBRY, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, AND HOLLAND H. CHASTAIN, AS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF HAROLD J. CHASTAIN, A MINOR, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of an oral contract for automobile insurance. The plaintiff sought damages based on an alleged oral agreement to issue a policy to a minor.
No, there was no genuine issue of material fact, and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
“Our study of the record convinces us that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the appellees were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's agreement with the trial court's finding that no material facts were in dispute and that the defendants were legally entitled to win.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBerdie Mae Adkins sued for damages, alleging an oral agreement by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to issue an automobile liability poli…
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.
Appellant, Berdie Mae Adkins, has instituted this appeal from a summary final judgment. She sought to recover damages from the appellees, founding her right for recovery upon an alleged oral agreement for issuance of an automobile liability insurance policy by the appellee insurance company to Harold J. Chastain, a minor. The appellees interposed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court found, from an examination of the entire record, that there was no valid contract in existence such as would support the action. Grant*35ing the motion for summary judgment, the trial judge subsequently entered a final judgment.
Our study of the record convinces us that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the appellees were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Hence we find no error, and accordingly the judgment entered by the trial court is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., KANNER, J., and STEPHENSON, GUNTER, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holland H. Chastain v. Embry, 118 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
Authorities Cited
- Holland H. Chastain v. Embry, 118 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)