SOUTHERN AMERICAN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LEONARD RINZLER AND PENINSULAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that a deductible specified only in an extended coverage endorsement cannot be applied to reduce benefits payable for primary fire coverage.
An insurer appealed a judgment awarding fire loss benefits to its insured, arguing a deductible from an endorsement should apply to fire damage. The p…
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 Attorney'S Fees On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
The insurer contends, on its appeal from a judgment awarding $45,600 in fire loss benefits to its insured, that the deductible stated in the policy endorsement applicable to extended coverage perils must be applied to reduce the benefits payable to the insured for fire damage to the insured premises. The policy, however, specifies no deductible from benefits payable for loss by fire, and a deductible applicable only to certain losses specified in the extended coverage endorsement cannot be applied by implication to the primary fire coverage. The fire coverage intended was evidently full indemnity. Compare Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Gulf Breeze Cottages, Inc., 38 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1949).
While appellant complains also of the sufficiency of the insured’s evidence to justify the amount of the verdict and judgment, we cannot review the evidence in the absence of a motion for directed verdict or for new trial, predicated on the sufficiency of the evidence, and in the absence of assignments of error in trial court rulings touching on the evidence and its sufficiency. Neither are we able to consider appellant’s complaint that the attorney’s fee awarded pursuant to § 627.428, F.S.1973, was excessive, no record of the evidence submitted on that issue having been brought here. We are unwilling to rule that, regardless of the circumstances, the fee awarded is excessive as a matter of law. Worcester Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Eisenberg, 147 So. 2d 575 (Fla.App.3d, 1962).
We grant Rinzler’s motion for allowance of a fee for attorneys’ services on this appeal. The amount will be determined by the trial court on proper application.
Affirmed.
BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nordyne, Inc. v. Fla. Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…al that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, it has, likewise, failed to preserve that issue for review. See, e.g., Ruth v. Sorensen, 104 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1958); Southern American Fire Ins. Co. v. Rinzler, 324 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Winnemore v. Morton, 214 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Mr. Land, Inc. v. Rabinowitz, 134 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Had Nordyne preserved its right to challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support the cla…
-
Ind. Ins. Co. v. Miguelarcaina, 648 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…at the trial court properly concluded that the endorsement was ineffective to exclude the coverage provided elsewhere in the policy. See Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Burak, 373 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Southern Am. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rinzler, 324 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (deductible which in policy endorsement applied only to “extended coverage perils” cannot be applied by implication to the primary fire coverage extended by the policy). Indiana also contends that the trial court erred in awardi…
-
First Nat'l Bank OF Fla. v. Braun, 474 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…al concerning what has been characterized as the relatively complex trial. Although those aspects are not before us for determination, see Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So. 2d 884, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Southern American Fire Insurance Co. v. Rinzler, 324 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), they have been argued by the parties, and we feel that in the interests of judicial economy we should now refer to them because they would again be involved at the new trial. They concern the bank’s contention that the evidence…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Worcester Mut. Fire Ins. Co. & Sec. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Eisenberg, 147 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Gulf Breeze Cottages, 38 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1949)