AMERICAN FIDELITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE CLARK, SR., AND ROSA CARSWELL CLARK, HIS WIFE, 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.
American Fidelity Fire Insurance Company appealed a declaratory judgment ruling that held it liable for uninsured motorist coverage under a homeowner's insurance policy. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding that the Zeagler precedent controlled and that the plaintiff's complaint failed to allege sufficient facts regarding the 'ownership, maintenance or use' requirement.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Zeagler precedent controlled the disposition of the case. Additionally, the court held that the insurance company's complaint failed to allege sufficient factual allegations regarding whether the damages arose from 'ownership, maintenance or use' of the vehicle, containing only legal conclusions rather than facts.
“although the declaratory decree statute is broad in scope and application, nevertheless the rules of pleading require that sufficient facts be stated in a complaint to apprise the defendant of what it is that the plaintiff complains so that he may make such defense as he may have.”
Establishes the pleading standard requiring factual allegations rather than mere legal conclusions in declaratory judgment actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants were parents of a minor son, with the mother being the primary named assured under an insurance policy issued by American Fidelity. The…
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 Declaratory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the appellant (plaintiff) from a final judgment on the pleadings in favor of the appellee (defendant).
Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory Decree, seeking a determination that the plaintiff was not liable to the defendants on the uninsured motorist coverage included in a policy of insurance issued by the plaintiff to the defendants.
The defendants in this cause were the mother and father of a minor son, the mother being the “principal named assured" under the policy.
The trial court held that the matter was controlled by Zeagler v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of N. Y., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 616, and ruled for the appellees.
The appellant appealed and claimed the following errors:
1. The court erred in permitting the appellee to maintain a claim for wrongful death under the uninsured motorist clause.
2. The court erred in failing to consider evidence regarding appellant’s claim that the damages did not arise out of “ownership, maintenance or use” of the uninsured vehicle.
*1073. The award of attorneys’ fees was grossly excessive.
The appellant has abandoned its argument concerning the propriety of the allowance of attorneys’ fees; therefore, no ruling is required on this point.
Appellant also candidly admitted that this case would be controlled by the Supreme Court’s decision on a petition for certiorari which had been filed in the Zeagler case, supra.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Zeagler case, Commercial Union Insurance Co. of N. Y. v. Zeagler, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 450. (Opinion filed March 3, 1965). Accordingly, that portion of the decree appealed from is affirmed.
The last matter to be considered is the claim of appellant that the damages allegedly incurred did not arise out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the uninsured vehicle.
The complaint contained, inter alia, the following allegations:
“2. That at' all times material hereto, the policy contained certain family protection coverage whereby the Plaintiff agreed:
“T. DAMAGES FOR BODILY INJURY CAUSED BY UNINSURED AUTOMOBILES: To pay all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom, hereinafter called ‘bodily injury’, sustained ■ by the insured caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured automobile; provided, for the purposes of this endorsement, determination as to whether the insured or such representative is legally entitled to recover such damages, and if so the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured or such representative and the company or, if they fail to agree, by arbitration.’
* * * * * *
“7. The Plaintiff contends:
“(a) That the damages complained of by the Defendants did not arise out of the operation of an uninsured motor vehicle as intended under the provisions of Chapter 627.0851 of the Florida Statutes.”
These allegations are the only reference in the complaint to the ownership, maintenance or use of the vehicle, and amount to conclusions of law and do not reflect any “factual allegations” to be determined by the trial court.
This Court has recently ruled in the case of Saks v. Smith, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 895, “although the declaratory decree statute is broad in scope and application, nevertheless the rules of pleading require that sufficient facts be stated in a complaint to apprise the defendant of what it is that the plaintiff complains so that he may make such defense as he may have.”
The decision of a chancellor comes to this court with a presumption of correctness. First Atlantic National Bank v. Cobbett, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 870; Groover v. Simonhoff, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 541; Lenchner v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1963, 156 So.2d 767.
There has been no showing of error, or of an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Therefore the appeal here under review is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hortensio Delgado and Nellie Geraldine Delgado v. Strong, 360 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1978)…ctness which surrounds a final judgment on review, Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1962); Williams v. Williams, 85 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1955); Staton v. Staton, 231 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); American Fidelity Fire Insurance Co. v. Clark, 174 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), compels the conclusion that the trial judge in the case sub judice properly applied this principle in determining the propriety of a judgment of foreclosure in favor of petitioners. Our conclusion is buttressed by the foregoing f…
-
Westwood Lake, Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 246 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…2d 737. Westwood’s second point on appeal is that the lower court erred in entering a judgment on the pleadings. Judgments on the pleadings are authorized in declaratory judgment actions. American Fidelity Insurance Company v. Clark, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 106. Westwood’s rights under Ch. 32 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County were declared by the court below and no error has been made to appear as to such declaration. For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Galera v. The Ohio Cas. Co., 284 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…reverse upon a holding that the issue of coverage was not properly presented in the petition and that therefore the appellant was not put on notice to defend the issue of coverage. See American Fidelity Fire Insurance Company v. Clark, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 106; Saks v. Smith, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 895. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to set aside the default entered against the appellant and to allow a reasonable time for appellant to answer, Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- First Atl. Nat'l Bank OF Daytona Beach v. Olive S. Cobbett, 82 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1955)
- Zeagler v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 166 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Groover v. Simonhoff, 157 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Saks v. Harry B. Smith ad Litem of Etta Saks, 145 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Dade Neon Sign & Serv. & Hwy. Ins. Co. v. Vidal, 172 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1965)
- Commercial Union Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. Zeagler, 172 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1965)
- Murray Lenchner v. City OF Miami Beach, 156 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)