BLANCHE BIRCH AND HER HUSBAND, COLBIA ALVIN BIRCH, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF SHELBY, OHIO, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court approved a District Court of Appeal decision concerning an insurance coverage question of great public interest. The court's decision mirrored its ruling in a similar, previously decided case, finding the lower court's reversal to be correct.
Yes, the District Court of Appeal correctly reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court approved the District Court's ruling, aligning it with its decision in a prior, similar case.
“The decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in this cause has been certified to this court as one passing upon a question of great public interest.”
Establishes the procedural posture and significance of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an insurance policy dispute that was certified to the Florida Supreme Court due to its public interest. The District Court of Appeal…
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.
The decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in this cause has been certified to this court as one passing upon a question of great public interest. The decision certified to us is reported at 196 So.2d 482.
In the decision under review the trial court was reversed on authority of DeCespedes v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Company, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 224, a decision of the District Court of Appeal, *562Third District. Both cases decide the identical question.
The decision of the district court in DeCespedes has also been certified to us for review, and we have this day entered our decision approving it, Fla. 202 So.2d 561.
Accordingly, the decision of the district court in this cause is also approved.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL and O’CON-NELL, JJ., concur.
DREW, J., dissents with opinion.
ERVIN, J., dissents and agrees with DREW, J.
(dissenting):
I agree with the dissenting opinion of Andrews, J., in District Court of Appeal.
ERVIN, J., concurs.
DREW, Justice
(dissenting):
I agree with the dissenting opinion of Andrews, J., in District Court of Appeal.
ERVIN, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
McCABE v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 68 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…gation “is not available to an extent greater than the amount paid by the insurer, and then only after the insured has been fully indemnified.” DeCespedes v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co. of Chi., Ill., 193 So. 2d 224, 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 202 So. 2d 561 (Fla.1967).[T]hey may execute a release, accord and satisfaction for themselves but not for their insured. Such is not binding on the insured. In the case at bar, damage claims may be in excess of policy limits, or such claims may fall outside of th…
-
Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Martin, 377 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ot available to an extent greater than the amount paid by the insurer, and then only after the insured has been fully indemnified. DeCespedes v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Company of Chicago, Ill., 193 So. 2d 224, 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied 202 So. 2d 561 (Fla.1967) (footnotes omitted). [*CMX] In Garrity v. Rural Mutual Insurance Company, 77 Wis.2d 537, 253 N.W. 2d 512 (1977), the Garritys had a fire insurance policy with Rural Mutual Insurance Company. The Garritys suffered a fire loss to their dai…
-
Cleary Bros. Constr. Co. v. Upper Keys Marine Constr., Inc., 526 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…Inc. v. Doctors Mercy Hosp., 458 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Martin, 377 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); DeCespedes v. Prudence Mut. Casualty Co. of Chicago, Ill., 193 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 202 So. 2d 561 (Fla.1967). Where there is a claim for indemnity, no such limitation exists. A party is permitted to pay a portion of an injured party’s damages and still seek indemnity from another for the payment made. That is the situation in the present case,…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Praxedes DeCESPEDES v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co. of Chicago, 193 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Praxedes DeCESPEDES and Gladys DeCespedes v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co. of Chicago, 202 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1967)
- The Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. OF Shelby v. Blanche Birch and her husband, 196 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)