THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY BOUTIQUE, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
Travelers Indemnity Company appeals a trial court's grant of a new trial in an insurance coverage dispute. The court reversed the new trial order because it failed to specify the grounds for granting the motion, and remanded with directions to reinstate the directed verdict for the insurer.
The appellate court reversed the order granting the new trial because it failed to specify the grounds upon which it was granted, as required by Florida law. The court remanded with directions to reinstate the directed verdict in favor of Travelers, finding no need to address the merits of whether the directed verdict was properly supported.
“Pursuant to a long line of authorities, we are required to reverse the trial judge in granting the new trial for failure to specify the grounds.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that new trial orders must specify grounds or be reversed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTravelers issued an insurance policy to Mary Boutique covering contents of a dress shop in Miami Beach basement against fire and extended coverage los…
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 New Trial Grounds cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court granting the appellee a new trial in an action whereby the appellee sought recovery on an insurance contract.
The appellant issued to the appellee a policy of insurance on the contents of- its dress shop, located in the basement level of the Beau Rivage Hotel, Miami Beach. Said policy insured the contents of the shop against loss by fire, with extended coverage against windstorm, hail, etc. On the nights of September 7th and 8th, 1965, hurricane “Betsy”, struck south Florida and, during said storm, the windows in the ap-pellee’s shop were broken and the goods remaining therein were destroyed. As a result of the aforementioned, the appellee brought the instant action seeking recovery under the terms of the policy, alleging loss was caused by windblown rain. The appellant contended the loss was occasioned by flooding from the ocean, which was excluded under the terms of the policy. The cause proceeded to jury trial and, at the conclusion of the appellee’s case, the trial court [pursuant to the appellant’s motion] directed a verdict for the appellant. The appellee filed a motion for new trial containing fourteen grounds. The court, upon hearing thereon, entered an order granting same, as follows:
* * *
“CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion for New Trial be, and the same is hereby granted.”
* * *
Upon this appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to include the specific ground upon which the motion for new trial was granted, and that the record adequately supported the directed verdict in the first instance as it was impossible to ascertain what caused the damage to the plaintiff’s property.
Pursuant to a long line of authorities, we are required to reverse the trial judge in granting the new trial for failure to specify the grounds. See: Booker v. Saunders Realty Co., Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 912; Ebersole v. Tepperman, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 564; Means v. Douglas, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 88; Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 240; Gaskill v. Montague, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So.2d 420; Ponte v. Lattin, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 260; Morton v. Staples, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 806; Hammett v. Lyte Lyne, Inc., Fla.1963, 150 So.2d 235; State Road Department v. Mutillo, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 179; Hall v. American Distributing Corp., Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 711; § 59.07(4) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Rule 2.8(f) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.
In view of our determination that the order under review must be reversed for failure to include the ground upon which it is granted, we see no need to discuss the other point urged by the appellant.
Therefore, the order here under review is hereby reversed, with directions to the trial judge to reinstate the final judgment in favor of the appellant upon the directed verdict.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l W. Life Ins. Co. v. Walters, 216 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…l court]. Reversed and remanded with directions. . State Road Department v. Mutillo, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 179; Hall v. American Distributing Corp., Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 711; Travelers Indemnity Company v. Mary Boutique, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 343; § 59.07(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Rule 2.8(f), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.…
-
Tullie O. Adkins v. Burdeshaw, 220 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…based as required by Rule 1.530(f). Failure to comply with this requirement is reversible error. Hammett v. Lyte Lyne, Inc., 150 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1963); Morton v. Staples, 141 So. 2d 806 (Fla.App.1962); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Mary Boutique, Inc., 198 So. 2d 343 (Fla.App.1967). Perceiving that there were defects in the new trial order of July 28 because of the failure to state the grounds on which it was based, appellants filed a motion on August 25, 1967, styled “Motion for Re-Hearing Defendant’s Motion f…
-
Mary Boutique, Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 201 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed. Appealing after remand Fla.App., 198 So. 2d 343.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., 122 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Means v. Douglas, 110 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Gaskill v. Montague, 128 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Simpson, 128 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- State ex rel. Peterman v. Adams, 65 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1953)
- Ponte v. Lattin, 135 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Hammett v. Lyte Lyne, Inc., 150 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1963)
- Hall v. Am. Distrib. Corp., 181 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Morton v. Elmo Staples, 141 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Mutillo, 155 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)