LOUIS K. SMITH AND CATHERINE Y. SMITH, PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, 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.
Where facts are undisputed, contract interpretation is a question of law for the court, not a jury.
The case involves a dispute over contract interpretation where the facts were not in dispute. The district court reversed the trial court's action but…
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 Question Of Law Vs. Question Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
We agree'with both petitioner and respondent that, there being no dispute as to the facts, the decision of the district court1 returning the case to the trial court to “determine the question of what was the proximate cause of the loss suffered by the Smiths” was in direct conflict with Paddock v. Bay Concrete Industries, Inc.,2 Russell & Axon v. Handshoe,3 Automatic Canteen Company of America v. Butler,4 and numerous decisions of this Court to the effect that where the evidence is undisputed, as here, the construction and interpretation of a contract is to be decided by the Court and not by the jury.
In .the questioned decision the disr trict court correctly decided the issues and we approve the reversal of the action of the trial court. The district court was also entirely correct in holding that the Smiths had an insurable interest in the automobile, following the First District’s decision in the Skaff case.5 The concluding paragraph, however, sending the case back for a jury trial, was in conflict with the decisions noted above and such paragraph is disapproved with directions to eliminate said paragraph from the decision and to remand the case for determination of allowable damages, under the express terms of the contract relating to loss occasioned by the temporary loss of use of the car.6
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Coleman v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 517 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1988)…review. See Bradley v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 460 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Gulf Tampa Dry-dock Co. v. Great Atlantic Insurance Co., 757 F. 2d 1172, 1174 (11th Cir.1985) (citing Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 231 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1970)); Drisdom v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co., 371 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). An injured party cannot recover under his own uninsured motorist policy if the tortfeasor has liability insurance with policy limits equal to or greater…
-
Grimm v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co., 243 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1971)…d title, but rather the absence of a marketable title. Motor Credit Corporation v. Woolverton, 99 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1957). See Fla.Stat. § 672.-401(2) (1969). This Court recently decided the case of Smith v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Insurance Co., 231 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1970). In that case we approved the holdings of the First and Third District Courts of Appeal that bona fide purchaser for value of stolen automobiles have an “insurable interest” therein. See, Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance C…
-
Dixie Farms, Inc. v. The HERTZ Corp., 343 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…court, as a matter of law, and not a jury, bolsters appellant’s contention that the issue had not been dealt with by the jury during the trial. O’Brien v. Elder, 250 F. 2d 275 (5th Cir. 1957); Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 231 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1970), conformed to 232 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). In any event, we hold that appellee has failed to meet its necessary burden in proving that the coverage issue was actually litigated and therefore barred by the above doctrines from relit…
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
- Paddock v. BAY Concrete Indus., Inc., 154 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Russell & Axon v. Handshoe, 176 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Automatic Canteen Co. OF Am. v. Everette E. Butler, Jr., 177 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Lennie L. Humphries, 215 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 220 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)