NORA CHATMON, APPELLANT,
v.
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1972-11-14
No. 72-243
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
268 So. 2d 551 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1972) Caution
Cited by 4 cases
Topics
Automobile Accident

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Automobile Accident cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant, Nora Chatmon, seeks review of a final judgment for defendant, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, which ordered that plaintiff was not entitled to insurance benefits arising out of an automobile accident in which she sustained injuries while a paying passenger in a jitney. Another paying passenger in the jitney, Albert Kennedy, was similarly injured during the same accident and he has already been before this court in a separate suit seeking relief, Kennedy v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Fla.App. 1972, 264 So.2d 32. The Kennedy case which necessarily involves the exact same factual situation and questions of law has already been decided by this court and it is upon the authority established in Kennedy that we now reverse the lower court’s final judgment in the case hereunder consideration.

The judgment is reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Joseph v. State, 447 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …companion cases were binding on the court under the doctrine of stare decisis. See e.g., Rackley v. Slade, 141 Fla. 310, 193 So. 70 (1940); Balzebre v. 2600 Douglas, Inc., 273 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Chatmon v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 268 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Metropolitan Dade County v. E.B. Elliott Advertising Co., 214 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Agreed, we may in appropriate cases invoke our extraordinary en banc jurisdiction under Fla.R.App.P. 9.331(a) in order to recede from a…
  • Joseph Uram Jewelers, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 273 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
    …judice, however, we feel that the provisions of the application are controlling and will result in greater coverage under the policy. Kennedy v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 32; Chatmon v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 268 So. 2d 551 (Fla.App.3d, opinion filed November 14, 1972). In addition, we do not believe that the insured’s failure to read the policy precludes him from claiming that an irreconcilable conflict exists between the policy and coverage desired. Blumberg v. Amer…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw