WILLIE F. GRIFFIN, APPELLANT,
v.
GENERAL GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court's determination that the defendant was not a resident of his nephew's household was supported by sufficient evidence and would not be reversed.
The defendant, injured in an accident with an uninsured motorist, sought coverage under his nephew's insurance policy. The nephew's insurer denied cov…
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 Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Griffin, appeals from a declaratory decree for plaintiff, insurance company, seeking construction of Allan Williams’ insurance policy. The defendant was injured in an automobile accident in a car owned and operated by another who was uninsured, and he sought recovery under his nephew’s insurance policy providing coverage for the nephew and his relatives, who are residents of the same household. It was undisputed that Griffin was a relative of Williams, but it was contended by the plaintiff that even though Griffin resided three to four days a week with his nephew, he actually maintained his residence with his mother and stepfather at another domicile.
The sole issue before the trial court was whether the defendant, Griffin, was a resident of the same household of his nephew, and as such entitled to the uninsured motorist coverage under his nephew’s policy. After hearing the testimony the trial court determined that the defendant, Griffin, was not a resident of the same household of his nephew and denied coverage. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in making this finding and argues that the evidence establishes that he was a resident of both the household of his nephew and his mother and stepfather.
The trial judge was the trier of the facts, and his conclusions are presumed to •be correct and will not be reversed unless there is a demonstration that there was a complete lack of sufficient, competent evidence to support the findings of the trial judge. See Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Company, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 690; Davis v. Levin, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 351; and Pergament v. Pergament, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 26.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sutherland v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 493 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…belonged to the uncle, but the uncle resided in Cleveland and only occasionally visited the Florida house. Appellee also points to the statement in Sembric, which the opinion indicates is derived from Griffin v. General Guaranty Insurance Company, 254 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), that a policy containing a resident family household member provision requires that those members of the household dwell or live together on a permanent basis. Clearly the Sembric context for the statement is too different for us…
-
Am. Sec. Ins. Co. v. VAN Hoose, 416 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ot deny right to claim household). These cases are distinguishable from the instant case in that the absence is for a temporary time, with an intent seen to go back to the residence of the named insured. Contra, Griffin v. General Guaranty Ins. Co., 254 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (insured seen as resident of only one home despite spending time in two).…
-
Alava v. Allstate Ins. Co., 497 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…s, paid Ohio income taxes, and was a registered Ohio voter, was not a resident of his nephew’s home for insurance purposes merely because he visited his nephew’s Florida home for seven weeks of the year. In Griffin v. General Guaranty Insurance Co., 254 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), this court held that an uncle was not the resident of his nephew’s household simply because he spent three or four days a week there; rather, he maintained his residence with his mother and stepfather at another domicile. In Cava…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cruger v. Allstate Ins. Co., 162 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Davis v. Levin, 138 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Pergament v. Pergament, 117 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- State of Fla. ex rel. William R. Colson v. Bishop, 117 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)