SOUTHERN AMERICAN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
I. B. H. LIQUOR CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1971-01-12
No. 70-480
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
242 So. 2d 731 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Southern American Fire Insurance Company appealed a judgment requiring it to pay damages for losses sustained by I.B.H. Liquor Corp. during the 1968 Liberty City riots in Miami. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment on liability, denial of severance, and award of attorneys' fees.


Holding

The trial court properly denied severance because there was no factual dispute about the loss itself; it correctly entered summary judgment on liability because the defendants conceded policy issuance and the loss was established by depositions and affidavits; and the court could not review the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees award because the appellant failed to provide the trial record.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for severance when there is no issue of fact regarding the loss sustained and the principal question is th…

[2] A partial summary judgment on liability is appropriate when defendants concede the issuance of policies and evidence clearly indicates the loss and the circumstances givi…

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“The defendants conceded the issuance of the policies; the depositions and affidavits clearly indicated the loss, the existence of the riot or civil disobedience, and the burglary. Therefore, it was appropriate for the trial court to enter the partial summary judgment on liability.”

Establishes the basis for upholding summary judgment on liability—undisputed material facts supported by documentary evidence.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

I.B.H. Liquor Corp. held two insurance policies: an open stock burglary policy issued by Lloyds (Tiarks) with $7,500 maximum liability, and a riot/civ…

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
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, I. B. H. Liquor Corp., had two policies of content insurance for its premises. One policy was an open stock burglary policy covering merchandise, furniture, fixtures, etc., feloniously taken or damages because of burglary. This policy was issued by the appellee, Tiarks, a/k/a Lloyds, and had a maximum liability of $7500.00. The other policy, issued by Southern American Fire Insurance Company, covered damages for merchandise, furniture, fixtures, etc., which were lost as the result of a riot or civil disobedience.

I. B. H. Liquor Corp. suffered a loss during the riots and civil disobedience which occurred in the Liberty City area of Miami during August, 1968, when the Republican National Convention was being held in Miami Beach. It sustained a burglary on August 7, 1968, and extensive damages, loss of merchandise, chattels and fixtures as a result of a riot and civil disobedience on August 8, 1968. It brought suit to recover on its two policies. The trial court entered a summary judgment as to liability and submitted the question of damages and apportionment among the several defendants to a jury. The jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiff, assessing the total amount of the coverage on the Lloyds policy and rendering a verdict for the balance claimed against the defendant, Southern American Fire Insurance Company. Following the jury verdicts, the trial court entered an order on attorneys’ fees, pursuant to § 627.0127, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This appeal ensued and the appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying its pretrial motion for severance, granting the motion for summary judgment as to liability, and that the amount awarded as attorneys’ fees was unreasonable. We affirm.

No abuse of discretion has been shown by the trial judge in denying a severance; there was no issue of fact as to the loss sustained. The principal question was whether one or both of the insurance companies were liable therefor. It was clearly within the trial judge’s discretion to submit the matter of apportionment of the damages, if any, to the trier of fact. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Lassiter, 58 Fla. 234, 50 So. 428; Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316, 161 So. 576; Lincoln Tower Corp. v. Dunhall’s-Florida, Inc., Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 474. The defendants conceded the issuance of the policies; the depositions and affidavits clearly indicated the loss, the existence of the riot or civil disobedience, and the burglary. Therefore, it was appropriate for the trial court to enter the partial summary judgment on liability. Standard Oil Company v. Dunagan, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 622; General Fire and Casualty Company v. Bent, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 38; Turner Produce Company v. Lake Shore Growers Cooperative Association, Fla.App.1969, 217 So.2d 856.

Lastly, as to the amount of attorneys’ fees, the appellant has failed to bring to this court the record made before the trial judge at the time of the award of these fees and, without such a record, this court cannot consider the reasonableness of said fees when the order granting same clearly indicates that it was entered after receiving the evidence. Worcester Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Eisenberg, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 575; Seraydar v. Seraydar, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 32.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Maner Props., Inc. v. Siksay, 489 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
    …e supplemental material a transcript of the hearing at which this issue was tried, and we therefore affirm on that basis. See Walker-Seaman v. Garwood, 456 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Southern American Fire Insurance Co. v. I.B.H. Liquor Cory., 242 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Greene v. Hoiriis, 103 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). The trial court’s determination on the issue of numerosity is buttressed by evidence that there are potentially over 350 plaintiffs in the class. The amended complaint assert…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw