SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AN OHIO CORPORATION, AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
HENRY SCHUITEMA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conflict Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
The petition for writ of certiorari, having shown jurisdictional conflict, seeks review of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 183 So.2d 571.
The rule of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Imperial Casualty and Indemnity Co., 168 So.2d 688, collides directly with the decision here reviewed and poses our problem of resolving the conflict.
It is our conclusion that Judge Smith, in his penetrating analysis of the policy and persuasive authorities, has reached the preferable conclusion.
The writ is discharged.
THORNAL, C. J., THOMAS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., and PARKER, Circuit Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gen. Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Reid, 216 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…was applied to the employee exclusion clause, such clause was not effective to exclude coverage under the policy unless the person making the claim was the employee of the insured against whom the claim zvas asserted. The Supreme Court of Florida at 193 So. 2d 435 expressly approved this court’s holding in Schuitema and there should be no question now but that in this jurisdiction, as concerns the severability of interest clause and its effect on the employee exclusion clause, the law is settled. Appellee ass…
-
McRAE v. Snelling, 303 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…collected and discussed in the article by Risjord and Austin, “Who is ‘the Insured’ ”, XXIV University of Kansas City Law Review 65 (Fall Issue 1955). . Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schuitema, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 571 (cert. disch. Fla.1967, 193 So. 2d 435). . The cross-employee exception to the omnibus clause in the USF & G policy was in language identical to the policy involved in the case of General Insurance Company of America v. Reid, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 41. Therein, we pointed out why, und…
-
Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Fonseca, 358 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…2). Rojas and Fonseca assert that the husband’s car qualifies as a temporary substitute and that the case which should control our decision here [*572] in is Shelby Mutual Insurance Company v. Schuitema, 183 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); affirmed, 193 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1967). They argue that Boyd did not deal with the applicability of a severability of interests clause and therefore should not be disposi-tive here, while Schuitema, which did deal with such a clause, should determine the result in the cases at…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schuitema, 183 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co., 168 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)