GREAT AMERICAN MORTGAGE INVESTORS, AN UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TRUST ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH MIAMI, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLEE
GREAT AMERICAN MORTGAGE INVESTORS, AN UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TRUST ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, APPELLANT,
THE SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH MIAMI, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLEE
310 So. 2d 418
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1975)
Caution
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed on the authority of Great American Mortgage Investors v. The Miami Beach First National Bank, Fla.App.1975, 307 So. 2d 844.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.C. Ins. Co. v. Wolf, 331 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…5 (Fla.1973); and loseph Uram Jewelers, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 273 So. 2d 111, (3rd D.C.A., 1972). Durbin is inapplicable for, as was pointed out in Frank, et al. v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Hartford, Connecticut, Fla.App., 310 So. 2d 418 (3rd D.C.A., 1975) that decision rested upon previous dealings of the parties. In the case sub-judice, the record does not reveal an oral binder for coverage for loss sustained from “safe burglary.” or that such coverage was requested either of the…
-
Medley Warehouses, LC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 39 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…as Medley’s agent after the binder had expired and the policy was issued. It is well settled that a binder is not a policy of insurance, but rather, “a contract either written or oral providing for interim insurance.” Frank v. Travelers Indem. Co., 310 So. 2d 418, 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); see also 1A Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance 3d § 13:1 (2009). A binder is “effective at the date of the application and termi- [*445] nat[es] at either the completion or rejection of the principal policy.…
-
Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 404 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…bute greater significance to the letter of assumption than to the subsequent binder given by the agent of USF&G. While we are aware of one Florida case in which it was stated that a binder is not a policy of insurance, Frank v. Traveler’s Indemnity, 310 So. 2d 418 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), that case is distinguishable from the instant case.2 In our opinion, the statutory presumption of Section 440.42(2)3 could be applied to the competing binders in this case, with the result that the last binder, given by USF&G, hav…
Authorities Cited
- Great Am. Mortg. Invs. v. The Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank, 307 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)