MURRAY M. SHELDON, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
STANLEY AZIF AND LAURA AZIF, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
Murray M. Sheldon, Inc., an insurance agency, was sued by Stanley and Laura Azif for negligently failing to secure requested automobile insurance coverage while representing that they were insured. After a jury trial found against the agency, this appeal challenges the judgment on five grounds, all of which the court rejected.
The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting all five grounds for appeal. The communications between Dade and Preferred were properly excluded because there was no privity between the Azifs and Preferred, and the documents were not shown to be res gestae. The Azifs were not estopped merely by stating in an SR 21 form that they were insured by Preferred. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and jury charge determinations.
[1] Statements made by an insurance company with which a defendant insurance agency attempted to secure coverage are not binding on the plaintiff insureds when there is no pr…
[2] The admissibility of evidence under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule is primarily a question for the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is clear that there was no privity between the appellees and Preferred; therefore the statements of Preferred were not binding upon appellees.”
Establishes the court's rationale for excluding communications between Dade Underwriters and Preferred Insurance Company as inadmissible hearsay.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Azifs requested automobile insurance coverage from Sheldon, an insurance agency. Sheldon represented to the Azifs that they were insured but negli…
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 Res Gestae Exception To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellees, Stanley Azif and Laura Azif, sued the appellant, Murray M. Sheldon, Inc. The gist of the complaint was *505the charge that Sheldon, an insurancagency, had negligently failed to secure for the appellees the insurance coverage they had requested hut had represented to the appellees that they were insured. The damages claimed were the consequences of an automobile collision which subsequently occurred and upon which the appellees were not afforded insurance protection. Appellees received a final judgment against appellant after a jury trial. This appeal is from that judgment.
The first point presented urges error upon the court’s refusal to admit into evidence certain written communications between Dade Underwriters Insurance Agency, Inc., and Preferred Insurance Company. Dade is a second insurance agency through which the appellant had attempted to secure insurance coverage for the appellees. Preferred is the company with which Dade had attempted to place the insurance. It is clear that there was no privity between the appellees and Preferred; therefore the statements of Preferred were not binding upon appellees. Cf. Mizell v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 44 Fla.799, 33 So. 454 (1902). In addition we are not convinced that the documents were shown to be a part of the res gestae so as to be admissible under that exception to the hearsay rule. The question of admissibility under that exception is primarily a question for the trial court. Pride v. State, 151 Fla. 473, 10 So.2d 806 (1943). We do not find an abuse of discretion in the ruling.
The second point urges that the trial court erred in failing to rule that the appellees were estopped to claim they did not have the insurance coverage that appellant represented it had secured for them, because appellees stated in an SR 21 insurance form that they were insured by Preferred. The elements of an estoppel are not present. See cases cited at 12 Fla. Jur., Estoppel and Waiver, § 36.
The third point is without merit for the reasons stated in the discussion of the first point. The fourth point is directed to the refusal of the court to give a requested charge. We are not convinced that the charge was applicable to the issues tried by the jury, and the failure to give the charge is not shown to have been prejudicial to the appellant in any event. Therefore no error is demonstrated. See Karp v. Hodor, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 597.
The fifth point has been decided against appellant in the dismissal of a companion appeal. The Supreme Court denied appellant’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review that dismissal. See Murray F. Sheldon, Inc. v. Azif, Fla.1969, 232 So.2d 179 (case no. 38,930, October 16, 1969).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sol Karp v. Hodor, 166 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Sheffield v. Lloyd, 151 Fla. 454 (Fla. 1942)
- Mizell v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 44 Fla. 799 (Fla. 1902)
- Pride v. State, 151 Fla. 473 (Fla. 1942)
- Markham v. Markham, 232 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1969)
- Miami Bay Oaks Soroptimist Home for the Aged, Inc. v. Smith, 232 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1969)