ANTONIO LOPEZ
v.
MECHANICS & TRADERS INSURANCE COMPANY, OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA; ANTONIO LOPEZ V. STATE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., OF LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND
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.
Antonio Lopez sued two insurance companies on fire insurance policies covering mortgaged property, claiming coverage under the New York Standard Mortgage Clause. The defendants denied the mortgage was genuine and alleged the building was intentionally burned with Lopez's knowledge. The jury verdict was for the defendants, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding the evidence supported the jury's findings on the disputed factual issues.
The court affirmed the judgment for defendants, holding that the disputed issues of whether the mortgage was bona fide and whether the plaintiff had guilty knowledge of the incendiary fire were proper matters for jury determination, and that the evidence amply supported the jury's verdict.
“This was a clear issue of fact for the jury.”
Establishes that whether the mortgage was genuine and whether plaintiff had guilty knowledge were factual questions properly submitted to the jury rather than resolved on motion for directed verdict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLopez brought action on fire insurance policies issued on property he claimed to hold as mortgagee. The defendants challenged the mortgage's genuinene…
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 Fire Insurance Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
— The pleadings and the evidence in these two cases are identical. The defendants below, defendants-*253in error here, are different. The plaintiff brought an action at law against the defendants to recover on fire insurance policies issued to the owner who mortgaged the property insured-to the plaintiff. The declarations allege that the plaintiff is a mortgagee from the owner of the property and that he is protected by the New York Standard Mortgage Clause. The declaration alleges the destruction of the building by fire, proofs of loss, and the nonpayment of the claim.
The defendants by separate pleas denied that plaintiff held a bona fide mortgage from the owner, alleged that the mortgage was a sham, and that the buildings were intentionally burned with the consent of the plaintiff. A motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all the testimony was overruled and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. A-motion for new trial was denied, final judgment was entered, and the plaintiff took writ of error to this Court.
Error is assigned on denial of the motion for a directed verdict and for overruling the motion for a new trial. It is admitted that the fire was of incendiary origin. This admission left the issue of whether or not the plaintiff had guilty knowledge of the fire and whether or not the mortgage was a sham or was bona fide.
This was a clear issue of fact for the jury. We have examined the evidence carefully and it amply supports the verdict and judgment. We have read briefs of counsel and note their contention but we find nothing in the record that would warrant us in setting the judgment aside.
It is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgments.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lancione v. Cal. Union Ins. Co., 382 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…d overwhelmingly, supports both the action of the trial court in denying that motion below and the jury’s resolution of the issue. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Lopez v. Mechanics & Traders Ins. Co., 125 Fla. 252, 169 So. 670 (1936); see Chafetz v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 332 F. 2d 152 (5th Cir. 1964). Rodgers v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 700 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), upon which the appellant relies, is decisively distinguishable and therefore does not contro…