PLASTIC DYNAMICS CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LINCOLN INVESTMENT CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND PHILIP R. CONSOLO D/B/A LINCOLN INVESTMENT CORP., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1970-03-03
No. 69-584
Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
232 So. 2d 213 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals from a final judgment entered for the defendants at the conclusion of a non-jury trial. The single point presented urges that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it denied plaintiff’s proffer of extrinsic evidence as to the intent of the parties to the contract. The proffer consisted of testimony that the parties intended Philip R. Consolo would be personally liable on a contract.

The decision of the trial court that the contract is not ambiguous and that Consolo was not personally liable is amply supported by the holding in Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Wilson, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 761.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • France v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
    …with identical or similar language excluding from uninsured motorist coverage a relative owning an automobile, this court and a sister court have upheld the validity of such exclusionary clauses. See Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Kessler, 232 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) and Gilligan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 265 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Second, unlike Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971), upon which France relies, she is not an insured…
    1 / 2
  • Nat'l Union Indem. Co. v. Turner Hodges, 238 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
    …valid. See United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Webb, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 869, cited with approval in Morrison Assurance Company, Inc. v. Polak, Fla.1969, 230 So. 2d 6 (see Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Kessler, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 213). We think therefore that we need not further discuss this possible ground for the judgment under review. Appellee urges two other legal bases for the judgment. In the first, ap-pellee argues that the Camino is not an automobile under the policy de…
  • Gilligan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 265 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
    …by Mr. Well, by reason of the foregoing definition the defendants Mr. and Mrs. Well are not “persons insured” under the uninsured motorists provisions of the Liberty Mutual policy. See Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Kessler, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 213. In light of the foregoing it is the opinion of this Court that with respect to defendant Gilligan, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for Liberty Mutual; accordingly, the summary judgment for Liberty Mutual is reversed and the caus…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw