HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
COASTLINE DIESEL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1971-09-17
No. 70-1088
REED, C. J., CROSS, J., and DYKES, ROGER F., Associate Judge, concur.
252 So. 2d 836 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Insurance Policy Interpretation

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment on an insurance contract covering certain risks arising out of the operation of a garage for the repair of motor vehicles. The insurer is the appellant and the insured is the appellee. The insurer claims that it was not liable for the loss in question because of a specific exclusionary clause in the insurance contract. This basis for relief not only was not raised by appellant in the trial court, but is inconsistent with the theory of non-liability which appellant did raise below. We hold that the effect of the exclusionary clause will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Jackson v. Whitmire Construction Company, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 861, 862; United Services Automobile Association v. Porras, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 749. Without consideration of the exclusion, it appears to us that the appellant was liable on the contract. The judgment imposing such liability is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., CROSS, J., and DYKES, ROGER F., Associate Judge, concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • GEICO Indem. Co. & GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Perez, 260 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
    …t of its motions and the pretrial compliance statement. Thus, it appears that this issue was never presented to the trial court. Therefore, this ground cannot support the summary judgment."); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Coastline Diesel, Inc., 252 So. 2d 836, 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) ("The insurer claims that it was not liable for the loss in question because of a specific exclusionary clause in the insurance contract. This basis for relief ... was not raised by appellant in the trial court.... We hold t…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw