STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FOWLER RENTALS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1974-10-15
No. U-4
RAWLS, C. J'., and JOHNSON, J., concur., McCORD, J., specially concurring.
303 So. 2d 646 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1974) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the trial court had found and adjudged the defendant liable for losses of the plaintiff arising out of a fire insurance policy. At the final hearing, the respective counsel for the parties stipulated as to the amount of damages. Based thereon, the trial court entered its final judgment for the stipulated damages of $9500.00 and awarded $2500.00 attorney’s fee to plaintiff’s attorney, plus costs.

We have studied the record on appeal and the briefs, given due consideration to the oral arguments, and are of the opinion that the only material questions contained in this “case were also treated by our sister Court, The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida, in its case found in Schlehuber v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 281 So. 2d 373, in which Judge Pearson authored for that Court, found adversely to the insurance company under almost the same factual situation as found in the case sub judice. We agree with the Third District Court of Appeal, and therefore affirm the final judgment upon the authority of Schlehuber v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 281 So. 2d 373 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1973).

Affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J'., and JOHNSON, J., concur. McCORD, J., specially concurring.

Concurrence
McCORD, Judge

McCORD, Judge

(specially concurring).

I agree with the majority opinion. The record shows that the remaining balance of the mortgage exceeded the fire damage to the home, thus, in this case as in Schlehuber, supra, there will be no recovery by appellee in excess of the amount due under the mortgage clause. Were it otherwise, the result might not be the same. Had appellant desired to protect its interest as to the mortgagee, it should have brought the mortgagee in as a party.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Gobelman v. Gobelman, 316 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1975)
    …Certiorari denied. 303 So. 2d 646. ADKINS, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN, OVERTON, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.…
  • RAN Invs., Inc. v. Ind. Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
    …NCER C., Associate Judge, concur. . Spindler v. Kushner, 284 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Schlehuber v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 281 So. 2d 373, 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Fowler Rentals Inc., 303 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied 316 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1975).…
  • …Certiorari denied. 303 So. 2d 646. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw