OTIS N. HOBBY, SR., AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF OTIS N. HOBBY, JR., AND OTIS N. HOBBY, SR., INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
GARY DALE SCOTT ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Summary judgment for insurance defendants was reversed because a genuine triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the defendant was a resident of the insured household under the insurance policies.
A genuine triable issue of fact exists when uncontradicted evidence is susceptible of conflicting inferences, precluding summary judgment.
[1] Uncontradicted evidence that is susceptible of conflicting inferences creates a genuine triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment.
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 intelligence“A genuine triable issue may nonetheless exist in certain circumstances (as here) even where the evidence is uncontradicted if such evidence is susceptible of conflicting inferences.”
Court explaining the standard for denying summary judgment when evidence permits multiple reasonable interpretations.
Otis N. Hobby, Jr. was injured or killed, and his father, as administrator of his estate, sued defendants Gary Dale Scott and two insurance companies.…
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 Insurance Coverage Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Otis N. Hobby, Sr., as Administrator of the Estate of Otis N. Hobby, Jr., plaintiff below, appeals from a summary final judgment entered in favor of defendants, Gary Dale Scott, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company. Based upon our review of the record we are of the opinion that there exists a genuine triable issue of fact that ought to be submitted to a jury for determination, i. e., whether defendant Gary Dale Scott was a “resident” of the named insured’s (Mitch-ells) household under a policy issued by Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company and whether Scott resided in the same household (his mother’s) under a policy issued by Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company. A genuine triable issue may nonetheless exist in certain circumstances (as here) even where the evidence is uncontradicted if such evidence is susceptible of conflicting inferences. Osceola County v. Goodman, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 210; Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Company, Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 85; Coquina Ridge Properties v. East West Company, Fla.App.1971, 255 So. 2d 279. See also 30 Fla.Jur., Summary Judgment, sec. 10. The issues involved herein ought to be more fully developed at a regular trial. Accordingly, the summary final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN, MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Godbey v. Rosalyn Dresner and Chester B. Triplett, 492 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…e provided, a party would not be entitled to the absolute defense set forth in section 767.04. Even where the facts are uncontradicted, a summary judgment should not be granted if the facts are susceptible to conflicting inferences. Hobby v. Scott, 298 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). The movant bears the burden of demonstrating that the evidence conclusively overcomes every theory upon which, as framed by the pleadings, the opposing party’s position could be sustained. Tyner v. Woodruff, 206 So. 2d 684 (Fla.…
-
City OF Orlando v. Ashlock, 342 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…ing remains but questions of law. Shaffran v. Holness, 93 So. 2d 94 (Fla.1957). We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal in this case and find that there are genuine issues of fact which preclude the entry of summary judgment. Hobby v. Scott, 298 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Osceola County v. Goodman, 276 So. 2d 210 [*1003] (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Company, 264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Shollenberger v. Baskin, 227 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). REVERSED and REMANDED for…
Authorities Cited
- Coquina Ridge Props. v. E. W. Co., 255 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Osceola Cnty. v. Goodman, 276 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Byrd v. State, 264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)