AGNES LAIRD, APPELLANT,
v.
CHICAGO INSURANCE CO., 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 court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error due to the absence of a trial transcript.
Plaintiff sued an insurance company, which defended on the grounds of failure to make proof of loss. The plaintiff argued the insurer waived this requ…
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 Waiver Of Proof Of Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
Agnes Laird, plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment for the defendant, Chicago Insurance Company. The judgment was entered upon a jury verdict for the defendant.
Appellant presents nine points on appeal. Each of these points urges error upon the trial of the issue created by the defendant’s answer that appellant’s claim was barred by an alleged failure to make proof of loss under the policy. This issue was submitted to the jury. It is appellant’s position that the defendant insuance company waived its right to proof of loss by continuing to negotiate with her until the time for filing proof of loss had passed.
An insurance company may by its conduct waive its right to receive timely proof of loss. See Indian River State Bank v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 46 Fla. 283,35 So. 228 (1903); Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass’n v. Bunting, 133 Fla. 646, 183 So. 321 (1938). However we are unable to hold that appellant has demonstrated reversible error because she has not furnished us with a transcript of the testimony or evidence at the trial. We are unable to say that the issue of failure to make proof of loss was not presented by the evidence, nor are we able to say that the issue of waiver was presented by the evidence. Therefore the judgment must be affirmed under the rule stated in Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801; Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 358; Short v. Short, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So.2d 538.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Bunting, 133 Fla. 646 (Fla. 1938)
- Brown v. Householder, 134 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- The Indian River State Bank v. The Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 46 Fla. 283 (Fla. 1903)
- Crosby v. Stubblebine, 142 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Anne Grace Short v. Short, 162 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)