MARGARET MERULIA SIRUGO, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH R. SIRUGO, DECEASED, THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH R. SIRUGO, AND DORIS SIRUGO, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH R. SIRUGO, APPELLEES
MARGARET MERULIA SIRUGO, APPELLANT,
JOSEPH R. SIRUGO, DECEASED, THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH R. SIRUGO, AND DORIS SIRUGO, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH R. SIRUGO, APPELLEES
166 So. 2d 462
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1964)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed upon the authority of the rule stated in Faber v. Landman, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 405.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Douglas v. The Mut. Life Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 191 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…surer would not have issued the policy if it had known these facts.” See also: Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Whittington, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 382. The appellate court in Pennsylvania Thresh. & F. M. C. Ins. Co. v. Koltunovsky, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 462, reversed the trial court’s decision for the insured and remanded because the trial court erred in refusing to introduce the testimony of officials of the insurance company. The content of this testimony was that during negotiations for issuance of…
-
Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cropper, 296 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…lar fashion. In fact, our statute strongly suggests that parol evidence may be considered, because it refers to statements made by an insured “in negotiations” for a policy. In Pennsylvania Thresh. & F.M.C. Ins. Co. v. Koltunovsky, Fla.App.3d, 1964, 166 So. 2d 462, our sister court reversed the court below for having refused to permit insurance company officials to testify that the insured made material misrepresentations during preliminary negotiations for the policy. The order granting summary judgment is…
-
Pa. Threshermen & Farmers' Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Koltunovsky, 184 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…he plaintiff at that time for $15,000.00, the face amount of the policy, and for attorney fees in the sum of $5,000.00. The defendant appealed and the cause was reversed and remanded, with directions to grant the defendant a new trial [Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 462], Thereafter, the defendant’s motion for new trial and motion for jury trial were granted. This cause was then tried again, before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $5,000.00 damages and attorney fees of $3,250.00. The…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Princess Griffin v. Schulz, 123 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)