RELDA APARTMENTS, INC., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 reversed an order granting a new trial, holding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict for the plaintiff in an insurance contract case. The court directed the lower court to enter final judgment for the plaintiff.
Yes, the trial court erred in granting a new trial. The evidence supported the plaintiff's case, and the verdict should have stood.
“The first' count of the declaration sufficiently stated a cause of action and the uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff sustains the allegations of the declaration.”
Establishes the basis for the plaintiff's claim and the court's finding that the evidence supported it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued the defendant on an oral insurance contract and obtained a jury verdict and judgment on the first count of the declaration. The def…
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 Oral Contract Of Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
— This is a writ of error from an order granting a'new trial in a case where plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, sued the defendant in error, "defendant below, on an oral contract of insurance and recovered a judgment based upon a verdict upon the first count of plaintiff’s declaration. The first' count of the declaration sufficiently stated a cause of action and the uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff sustains the allegations of the declaration. There was no conflict' in.the evidence as to facts. There was some evidence going to the credibility of the plaintiff as a witness. The verdict should have been for the plaintiff under the evidence as submitted.
*754Under authority of the opinion in the case of Fla. East. Coast Ry. Company v. Davis, 96 Fla. 171, 117 So. R. 842, and authorities there cited, the order granting a new trial should be reversed.
The order granting a new trial is reversed and the cause’ is remanded with directions to enter final judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict rendered, unless a motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante veredicto■ should be made and prevail. See Section 2905, Rev. Gen. Stats., 1920, Section 4615, Comp. Gen. Laws, 1927; Fla. East Coast Ry. Co. v. Davis, supra, and cases there cited-
Reversed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.