BERNARDO PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
In this declaratory judgment action, an insured sought a declaration of his rights under an insurance policy. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but the appellate court reversed, holding that disagreements over insurance coverage are proper subjects for declaratory judgment when the insurer refuses to admit or deny coverage without specifying its reasons.
The court held that disagreements as to the coverage of insurance policies are a proper subject for declaratory judgment, and an insurer's refusal to admit or deny coverage without specifying reasons affords a sufficient basis for the circuit court's jurisdiction under Chapter 86, Florida Statutes, to hear a declaratory judgment action.
[1] Disagreements as to the coverage of insurance policies are a proper subject for declaratory judgment.
[2] Purely factual disputes are not the proper subject of an action for declaratory judgment.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It has often been held that disagreements as to the coverage of insurance policies are a proper subject for declaratory judgment.”
Establishes the principal rule that insurance coverage disputes are justiciable through declaratory judgment actions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Perez was an insured under a policy issued by appellee State Automobile Insurance Association. Perez filed a complaint seeking a declaratory…
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 Declaratory Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final judgment dismissing appellant’s complaint for a declaratory judgment. The appellant is the appellee’s insured. The complaint sought a declaration as to appellant’s rights under the policy of insurance. It appears from the allegations of the complaint that the appellant was entitled to maintain the action. The basis for the court’s action in dismissing the complaint with prejudice is stated to be failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We have not been favored with an appellee’s brief.1
*378It has often been held that disagreements as to the coverage of insurance policies are a proper subject for declaratory judgment. See Jones v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, Fla.App. 1968, 213 So.2d 502; Zeagler v. Commercial Union Insurance Company of New York, Fla.App. 1964, 166 So.2d 616; Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So.2d 690. It has also been held that purely factual disputes are not the proper subject of an action for declaratory judgment. See New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Intercity Supply Corporation, Fla.App. 1968, 212 So.2d 110; Burns v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Fla.App. 1963, 157 So.2d 84. Our examination of this complaint convinces us that appellee’s refusal to admit or deny coverage without specifying a reason for the refusal affords a sufficient basis for the circuit court’s jurisdiction under Chapter 86, Fla.Stat., F. S.A. See Jones v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, supra.
Reversed and remanded with directions to deny the motion to dismiss and for an order setting a date for defendant’s answer.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tindall v. Allstate Ins. Co., 472 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…conduct from according him coverage. Disagreements concerning coverage under insurance policies are proper subjects for a declaratory judgment. Tavares v. Allstate, 342 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Perez v. State Automobile Insurance Association, 270 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Furthermore, “[t]he right to utilize our declaratory decree statute ... depends on whether or not the movant shows that he is in doubt as to the existence or non-existence of some right, status, immunity, power or privilege, that…
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Laurence H. Wilson, 371 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ce Company, 162 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). See also Travelers Insurance Company v. Lee, 358 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Ta-vares v. Allstate Insurance Company, 342 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Perez v. State Automobile Insurance Association, 270 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Zeagler v. Commercial Union Insurance Company of New York, 166 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Thus, the question remains whether the determination of issues of fact are necessary in order to enter a declaration upon the cover…
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Emery, 579 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…to questions propounded from curiosity. . See Bergh v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co., 216 So. 2d 436 (Fla.1968); Johnson v. Travelers Indem. Co., 191 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), approved, 201 So. 2d 705 (Fla.1967); Perez v. State Auto. Ins. Ass’n, 270 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Intercity Supply Corp., 212 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); 19 Fla.Jur.2d Declaratory Judgment § 30 (1980). See also Columbia Casualty Co. v. Zimmerman, 62 So. 2d 338 (Fla.1952); M & E Land Co. v. Siegel…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Zeagler v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 166 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Intercity Supply Corp., 212 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Burns v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 157 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Jones v. The NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co., 213 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)