BRITISH LAW INSURANCE CO., LTD., ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
JOVAN CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1969-12-23
No. 69-499
Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
229 So. 2d 603 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Jovan Corporation held a lien on the aircraft.


Facts & Procedural History

Jovan Corporation recovered under an insurance policy's breach of warranty endorsement. The endorsement described Jovan Corporation as a lienholder on…

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.


Opinion of the Court
SWANN, Judge.

SWANN, Judge.

The appellant insurance companies appeal from a final judgment for the plaintiff, Jovan Corporation. Jovan Corporation recovered against these underwriters by virtue of its rights under a breach of warranty endorsement attached to an insurance policy they issued on an airplane.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court was correct in ruling that Jovan Corporation had a lien on the aircraft named in the policy.

The breach of warranty endorsement attached to the insurance policy issued by the underwriters stated that this aircraft was “encumbered by a lien * * * held by Jovan Corporation and C.I.T. Corporation as their respective rights and interests may appear,” and they were described in print as “hereinafter called the lienholders.”

The record reveals a copy of a Bill of Sale on this aircraft from Leon H. Patin to Walnico, Inc. which certified that there was a chattel mortgage on the aircraft “in favor of C.I.T. Corp. and Jovan Corporation.” Testimony of Patin was introduced to show that he had executed a Bill of Sale showing Jovan Corporation and C.I.T. as lienholders and forwarded it to the Federal Aviation Authority in Oklahoma City for recording although there was no proof that it had been received or recorded by that agency.

We find that there was sufficient, competent and substantial evidence in the record to uphold the finding of the trial judge that Jovan Corporation had a lien on the aircraft. See § 697.01, Fla.Stat, F.S.A.; Marcus v. Hull, 142 Fla. 306, 195 So. 170 *604(1940); and Foster v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc., D.C.App.1968, 241 A.2d 914.

The final judgment for plaintiff is

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw