ALBERT WILLIAMS, JR., AND CONTINENTAL DISCOUNT COMPANY, INC., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Williams and Continental Discount Company appealed a judgment dismissing their insurance claim against Canal Insurance Company for theft of an insured semi-trailer. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the evidence at the non-jury trial sufficiently supported the defendant's verdict.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the trial judge's findings were erroneous or manifestly against the weight of evidence.
“The findings of fact of a trial judge upon a non-jury trial are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict.”
Establishes the standard of review for non-jury trial judgments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn or about June 1, 1963, a semi-trailer owned by Albert Williams and financed by Continental Discount Company was stolen from premises in Miami, Flor…
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 Weight Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment for the defendant in the Civil Court of Record in Dade County, Florida. The appellants were the plaintiffs below and the parties are referred to herein as in the trial court.
This was an action on an insurance policy covering a semi-trailer owned by the plaintiff Albert Williams and financed by the loss payee plaintiff Continental Discount Company, Inc., against loss of the semitrailer by theft and other coverages.
The complaint alleged essentially that on or about June 1, 1963 the insured semitrailer was stolen, or a loss by theft occurred, from certain premises located in Miami, Florida; that the value of the semi-trailer was Three Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Dollars; that it was never recovered; that all conditions of the policy were performed, except those waived by the defendant; and that the defendant insurance company refused to pay the claim made under the policy, thereby necessitating the filing of this suit demanding damages and attorney’s fees.
The defendant’s answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, and set up as affirmative defenses the failure of plaintiffs to cooperate and give proper notice of the claim under the insurance policy.
The case proceeded to a non-jury trial. The trial judge entered a final judgment for the defendant. Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial was denied, and they thereafter filed notice of appeal.
The only point submitted by appellants for consideration is whether the evidence presented at the trial without a jury sufficiently supports the judgment in favor of the defendant. The courts of Florida have held that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight or lack of weight to be given their testimony is solely for the trier of facts. Pokress v. Josephart, Fla. App.1963, 152 So.2d 756.
We have previously set forth the criteria to be followed for reversal of a judgment in a non-jury case in Highland Lakes, Inc. v. Art Present Real Estate, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 348, wherein the court stated:
* * * * * *
“The findings of fact of a trial judge upon a non-jury trial are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict. MacGregor v. Sachs, Fla.1952, 57 So.2d 426; Bardee Corp. v. Arnold Altex Aluminum Co., Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 268; LaFrance Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Argenio, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 330. Therefore, we will not reverse unless it is made to clearly appear that the judgment of the trial judge is erroneous or where his findings are manifestly against the weight of evidence or are contrary to the legal ef-*550feet of the evidence. See Talbot v. Talbot, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 410.”
******
A careful review of the record before us does not show that the appellant has carried the burden of demonstrating such error, and the judgment of the trial court is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. Parks, 373 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…ted by appellant and disregard it if he found it unbelievable and lacking in credence. Firstamerica Development Corp. v. County of Volusia, 298 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied, 312 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1975); Williams v. Canal Insurance Co., 177 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). However, there is no indication that the trial judge found this evidence unworthy of belief; rather, he concluded that it was insufficient. While the judgment of a trial court comes to an appellate court clothed with a presumptio…
Authorities Cited
- Martin v. Green, 134 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Highland Lakes, Inc. v. ART Present Real Est., Inc., 147 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Pokress v. Josephart, 152 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Talbot v. Talbot, 104 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- LaFRANCE Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Argenio, 147 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- State of Fla. on the relation of Joseph B. Sidman & Jack P. Bluestein v. Fink, 147 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)