AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, A TEXAS CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHERN CREDIT ACCEPTANCE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that a complaint seeking a declaration that a defendant was not entitled to recover under an insurance policy, and to restrain them from suing, was properly dismissed because it sought to answer a hypothetical question based on events that might not occur.
An insurance company (plaintiff) issued a policy to a defendant and sought a declaratory judgment that the defendant was not entitled to recover under…
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 Hypothetical Questions cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff appeals an order dismissing its complaint for declaratory judgment. The defendant moved for the order upon the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action for declaratory relief.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiff had issued to the defendant a “Comprehensive, Dishonesty, Disappearance and Destruction Policy” and that the plaintiff, insurance company, had been advised by defendant that claims under the policy might be made because of certain alleged activities of a person formerly employed as a manager of defendant’s business. The prayer was for a declaration by the Court that defendant was not entitled to recover under the policy and should be restrained *11from instituting action for recovery of any sums thereunder.
It has been held that the courts may not he required to answer a hypothetical question or one based upon events which may or may not occur. Anderson v. Dimick, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 867; Harris v. Harris, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 376. Doubt because of disputed questions of fact alone is not sufficient. Halpert v. Oleksy, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 762.
Affirmed.
HENDRY, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Santa Rosa Cnty. v. Admin. Comm'n, 661 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1995)…ontingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future.’” LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1216,1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (quoting Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277, 283 (Fla. 1976)); see also American Indemnity Co. v. Southern Credit Acceptance, Inc., 147 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (holding that, in a declaratory action case, “courts may not be required to answer a hypothetical question or one based upon events which may or may not occur”). In light of these legal principles, we find that in the instant…
-
LaBELLA v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…tingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future.” Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277, 283 (Fla.1976) and cases cited; Robinson v. Town of Palm Beach Shores, 388 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); American Indemnity Co. v. Southern Credit Acceptance, Inc., 147 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (“[T]he courts [*1218] may not be required to answer a hypothetical question or one based upon events which may or may not occur.”); Harris v. Harris, 138 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 146 So. 2d 374 (Fla.1962).…
Authorities Cited
- Halpert v. Oleksy, 65 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1953)
- Harris v. Rosalyn Harris, 138 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Rosamond Cochrane Anderson and Andrew Anderson, III v. Dimick, 77 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1955)