STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LLOYD WARREN HICKS AND MABEL NAOMI HICKS, 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.
The court held that competent substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict establishing an oral contract of fire insurance.
Appellees sued appellant on an oral contract of fire insurance, obtaining a jury verdict. The trial court reduced the verdict due to insufficient evid…
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 Jury Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellees, plaintiffs below, sued the appellant, defendant, on an oral contract of fire insurance. The case was tried before a jury and a verdict was entered in favor of the appellees in the amount of $20,-000. The verdict was reduced by the amount of $1,500 by order of the trial court upon a finding that the evidence was in*686sufficient to support appellees’ claim for damages to personal property. After ap-pellees filed a remittitur of the said $1,500 a final judgment was rendered against the appellant in the amount of $18,500. It is from this final judgment that the appellant appeals.
The law is well settled in Florida that a contract of fire insurance may he established orally. The essentials necessary to establish an oral contract of fire insurance are the same as if it were in writing. These essentials were set forth in Collins v. Aetna Ins. Co., Fla.1931, 103 Fla. 848, 138 So. 369, as follows:
“ * * * the subject-matter, the risk insured against, the amount of insurance, the rate of premium, the duration of the risk, and the identity of the parties.”
We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and although the evidence is conflicting, we find that there was competent substantial evidence before the jury for it to determine that all necessary essentials were present for it to render a verdict for the appellees.
The law is well settled that an appellate court cannot place itself in the shoes of the jury, even though it might disagree with the jury’s verdict, if there is competent and substantial evidence which accords with logic and reason before the jury to sustain its verdict. Glass v. Parrish, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 717.
We have carefully considered the appellant’s other assignments of error and have determined that they are without merit. Therefore, the final judgment upon the jury verdict entered in the court below is affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and BRU-TON, JAMES Dv Jr., Associate Judge, concur. . . ....
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Burns v. Consol. Am. Ins. Co., 359 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…theft loss exclusion in the instant insurance policy prior to the assertion of any claims herein in no way raises a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of such a parol contract of insurance. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Hicks, 184 So. 2d 685 (Fla.2d DCA 1966). The entry of the final summary judgment in favor of Consolidated American Insurance Co. on the basis of no insurance coverage as to both theft loss claims herein was accordingly correct and should be affirmed.…
-
Monogram Prods., Inc. v. Berkowitz, 392 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…, Inc., 139 So. 2d 476 (Fla.2d DCA 1962). Florida also recognizes both oral contracts to procure insurance and oral contracts of insurance. Hanover Fire Insurance Co. v. Hiers, 79 Fla. 408, 84 So. 605 (1920); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Hicks, 184 So. 2d 685 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); 18 Fla.Jur. Insurance §§ 337 38 (1971); see § 627.401, Fla.Stat. (1979). Hence, the Statute of Frauds applied only if the alleged oral contract could not have been performed within one year. § 725.01, id. Monogram alleged that it…
-
W.S. Badcock Corp. v. Myers, 696 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…assumption of the risk by the insu-ror. 4. A general scheme to distribute the loss among the larger group of persons bearing similar risks. 5. The payment of a premium for the assumption of risk. See also State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Hicks, 184 So. 2d 685, 686 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 189 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1966)(the essentials of a contract of insurance are the subject matter, the risk insured against, the amount of insurance, the duration of the risk, and the identity of the parties). Application…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Glass v. Parrish, 51 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1951)
- Collins v. Aetna Ins. Co., 103 Fla. 848 (Fla. 1931)