AMERICAN EQUITABLE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL SAVINGS BANK, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, 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 trial court's judgment in an insurance contract dispute, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict and deeming a procedural error harmless.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding. While the trial court erred in striking the motion for a new trial, this error was harmless.
“although the evidence was in conflict, it was within the province of the trier of the fact to resolve these conflicts and, viewing the record in a light most favorable to the appellee as we are required to do, at this state of the proceeding we find competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial judge.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for finding sufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, the defendant in the trial court, appealed a non-jury judgment against it on an insurance contract. The appellant argued that the evide…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final judgment in a cause tried non-jury as to liability on an insurance contract. The appellant presents two points on appeal: First, that the evidence failed to support the trial court’s finding for the plaintiff. Second, that the trial court erred in striking its motion for a new trial. We affirm.
As to the first point, although the evidence was in conflict, it was within the province of the trier of the fact to resolve these conflicts and, viewing the record in a light most favorable to the appellee as we are required to do, at this state of the proceeding we find competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial judge. See: Ross v. Florida Sun Life Insurance Company, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 892; Bardee Corporation v. Arnold Altex Aluminum Co., Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 268; LaFranee Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Argenio, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 330, 331. As to the second point, it was error for the trial judge to strike the motion for new trial when it was filed within ten days of the rendition of the final judgment in a non-jury case. See: Rule 2.8(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 1965 Rev., 31 F.S.A. However, we have examined the motion for new trial and conclude that it would have been erroneous for the trial judge to have granted same and, therefore, we find that this error was *771“harmless”. See: Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Company, 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886; Glass v. Parrish, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 717; § 54.23, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 358.
The final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Courshon v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., 307 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…. Florida Sun Life Insurance Company, Fla.App.1960, 124 So. 2d 892, 894; Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So. 2d 50; American Equitable Assurance Company of New York v. Southern Industrial Savings Bank, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 770. We conclude, based on the findings of fact, that the court did not err as a matter of law in entering judgment against Cour-shon. Therefore, for the, reasons stated, the judgment appealed hereby is affirmed. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Glass v. Parrish, 51 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1951)
- Hervey S. Ross v. Fla. SUN Life Ins. Co., 124 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605 (Fla. 1931)
- Martin v. Green, 134 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- LaFRANCE Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Argenio, 147 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- State of Fla. on the relation of Joseph B. Sidman & Jack P. Bluestein v. Fink, 147 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)