HUGH W. JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, A NEW YORK 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.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the uninsured-underinsured carrier where factual questions existed regarding whether the insured's settlement without the carrier's express written consent prejudiced the insurer.
Summary judgment for the uninsured-underinsured carrier was improper because material factual questions existed regarding prejudice to the insurer from the insured's settlement without express written consent.
[1] An uninsured-underinsured carrier cannot obtain summary judgment based on an insured's settlement without express written consent where material factual questions remain…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson settled with the tort-feasors for their full policy limits by accepting an offer of judgment and executing a Satisfaction of Judgment without …
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 Satisfaction Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hugh Johnson seeks review of a final summary judgment entered in favor of his uninsured-underinsured carrier, Home Indemnity Company. Because there were justiciable issues of material facts, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Home Indemnity Company and in entering final judgment thereon.
Although Johnson had executed a Satisfaction of Judgment to the active tort-feasors after accepting an offer of judgment for their full policy limits allegedly without the express written consent of his uninsured-underinsured carrier, Home Indemnity Company, we find that factual questions existed as to prejudice to the insurer. Cf. Bass v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 199 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Sena v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 305 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); McInnis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 208 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Travelers Insurance Company v. Gray, 360 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). These disputed issues of material fact precluded entry of a summary judgment. The final summary judgment entered in favor of Home Indemnity Company is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
MILLS, C. J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bass v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. OF Hartford, 199 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- McINNIS v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 208 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Sena v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 305 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Marti B. Gray, 360 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)