CHARLIE O. BOX, APPELLANT,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS BONDING AND 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.
The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment for the insurance company, not because the trial court's reasoning of res judicata was correct, but because the undisputed facts showed the automobile was not covered by the policy.
No, the undisputed facts affirmatively showed as a matter of law that the automobile was not covered by the insurance policy.
“The summary final judgment which is appealed was entered upon the ground that the issues presented by the pleadings were res adjudicata.”
Describes the basis for the trial court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties presented facts to the trial court, and there was no genuine issue as to these facts. The core issue was whether these facts demonstrated …
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 Res Judicata cases and more on FLexlaw
The summary final judgment which is appealed was entered upon the ground that the issues presented by the pleadings were res adjudicata. We are unable to agree with the trial judge on that ground. Nevertheless, we hold that the judgment ■should be affirmed upon the rule that a correct judgment should not be reversed because of a wrong reason given.
The parties to this appeal have argued that the judgment may be affirmed upon the facts which appear without genuine issue. The controlling question of law is whether these facts show that an automobile was covered by a policy issued by appel-lee. We hold that it affirmatively appears as a matter of law from the facts presented to the trial court that the automobile was not covered. See Hicks v. Land, Fla.App. 1960, 117 So.2d 11; Coleman v. Atlantic National Insurance Co., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 620.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Derwin Brennan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 359 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Green v. State, 93 Fla. 1076, 113 So. 121 (1927); Box v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 187 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); McKay v. Highlands Insurance Company, 287 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Laster v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 293 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Barnes v. Travelers Insurance Company, 342 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1…
Authorities Cited
- Hicks v. Land, 117 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Hyron E. Coleman and Viva S. Coleman v. Atl. Nat'l Ins. Co., 166 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)