UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE S. PORRAS, 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 Third District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the denial of a motion for summary decree, finding that the trial court did not err in refusing to decide the applicability of an insurance policy's uninsured motorist coverage outside of New York at that stage of the proceedings.
No, the trial court did not commit reversible error by denying the motion for summary decree and refusing to decide the cause at that stage.
“This interlocutory appeal is by the plaintiff from an order denying its motion for summary decree.”
Establishes the procedural posture and the decision being appealed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnited Services Automobile Association (USAA) issued an automobile liability insurance policy with uninsured motorist coverage to Jose S. Porras in Ne…
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 Uninsured Motorist Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal is by the plain- ‘ tiff from an order denying its motion for summary decree. Plaintiff issued to defendant, in New York State, and automobile liability indemnity insurance policy which included uninsured motorist coverage. The insured was involved in an automobile collision with an uninsured motorist in Dade County, Florida, and sought recovery by arbitration. The insurer filed a suit in chancery against the insured in Dade County to enjoin the arbitration and for a decree declaring the uninsured motorist coverage, as provided for in the policy and an endorsement thereon, was not applicable outside the State of New York.
The record, briefs and argument having been considered, we conclude that on the pleadings and the documentary and other evidence which was before the trial court on the hearing on motion for summary decree, the chancellor did not commit reversible error by denying the motion and refusing to decide and conclude the cause at that stage.
Affirmed.