UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET SISUNG AND WILLIAM H. GRONER, 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 reversed a summary judgment, holding that a party is not entitled to summary judgment when the opposing party has pleaded affirmative defenses that have not been contradicted by the movant.
No, a party is not entitled to summary judgment when the opposing party has pleaded affirmative defenses that the movant has not contradicted or denied by affidavit.
“a party is not entitled to a summary judgment where the defendant has pleaded affirmative defenses, and the movant had not submitted, by affidavit, anything in contradiction or opposition thereto.”
This quote establishes the legal principle used to reverse the summary judgment.
The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, supported by pleadings, affidavits, and depositions. The defendant pleaded affirmative defenses in its answ…
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 Affirmative Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendant, Underwriters Insurance Company, from a summary final judgment entered by the lower court for the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs moved for a summary judgment, based on the pleadings, affidavits and depositions on file.
The defendant did not file an affidavit in opposition thereto; but had alleged certain affirmative defenses in its answer. It is admitted that the affidavit of the plaintiffs did not contradict or deny the affirmative defenses.
The lower court entered its summary final judgment based on the pleadings and affidavit of the plaintiff, and this appeal followed.
The summary final judgment should be reversed, on the authority of Emile v. First National Bank of Miami, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 305, which held that a party is not entitled to a summary judgment where the defendant has pleaded affirmative defenses, and the movant had not submitted, by affidavit, anything in contradiction or opposition thereto.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Tr. Co., 208 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…e made out a sufficient case based on the pleadings alone. See Emile v. First National Bank of Miami, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 305; Harrison v. McCourtney, Fla.App.1962, 148 So. 2d 53, 56; and, Underwriters Insurance Company v. Sisung, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 461. Also it appears to us that the affidavit of the defendant’s attorney raises an issue of fact as to the defense of payment. The defendant has also assigned as error the order of the circuit judge relieving the plaintiff bank from the obligation to…
-
Johnson & Kirby, Inc. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank OF Fort Lauderdale, 338 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…nt claimed the status of a buyer in the ordinary course of business. After examining the various pleadings, depositions, briefs and affidavits we can find no contravention of that allegation. As we stated in Underwriters Insurance Company v. Sisung, 174 So. 2d 461 (Fla.3d DCA 1965), where a defendant pleads an affirmative defense and the plaintiff does not by affidavit contradict or deny that defense, the plaintiff is not entitled to a summary judgment. We have considered the record, all points in the briefs…
-
Marilyn Kay Fernandez as Administratrix CTA of the Estate of Sam Kay v. Cunningham, 268 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…o dispel the issues presented by the pleaded affirmative defenses. See Emile v. First National Bank of Miami, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 305; Harrison v. McCourtney, Fla.App. 1963, 148 So. 2d 53; Underwriters Insurance Company v. Sisung, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 461; Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 152. Additionally we find merit in the appellant’s contention that the court abused discretion in denying her request for consideration of the deposition of the plaintif…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Emile v. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 126 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)