THE YASUDA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
RENE RODRIGUEZ, 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.
Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment for the plaintiff insured on a claim for breach of an insurance contract covering a stolen boat. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding the insurer's liability under the theft coverage policy.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment for the insured because the insured met his burden of proving the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact, and the insurer failed to demonstrate that any issues remained to be tried.
[1] Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party clearly and conclusively proves the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact.
[2] A plaintiff's proof in support of a motion for summary judgment must be sufficient to overcome any reasonable inferences that could be drawn in favor of the non-moving de…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“That the Plaintiff in his Motion for Summary Judgment has successfully met his burden of clearly and conclusively proving a negative, i. e. the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
The trial court's finding that the insured met the summary judgment burden by proving no genuine issue of material fact existed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYasuda issued a theft insurance policy on Rodriguez's boat and trailer on November 5, 1975. On December 19, the boat and trailer were stolen. Rodrigue…
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 Reasonable Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant insurance company seeks reversal of an adverse final summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff insured as to liability in this action to recover for the loss of a boat.
On November 5, 1975 Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Company of America issued an insurance policy to Rene Rodriguez covering his boat and trailer against loss due to theft. On December 19 plaintiff’s boat and trailer were stolen and he reported the theft to the local police and defendant insurance company. An adjuster for the defendant contacted plaintiff and subsequently alleged in his deposition that plaintiff was not cooperative. There also appeared to be some discrepancy as to the description of the boat’s engine given to the police and the description of the engine in the insurance policy. Nevertheless, after obtaining a picture of plaintiffs boat, the adjuster conducted an unsuccessful search. On the grounds of the engine discrepancy and the lack of cooperation on plaintiffs part, defendant refused to reimburse the plaintiff for his loss. Plaintiff then filed suit seeking damages for breach of the insurance contract. Pretrial discovery ensued and plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. After argument of counsel, the trial judge entered summary judgment against defendant based on the following:
“1. That the Plaintiff in his Motion for Summary Judgment has successfully met his burden of clearly and conclusively proving a negative, i. e. the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact. The Plaintiff’s proof as demonstrated by an extensive record as above reflected is such as to overcome any and all reasonable inferences which may or could be drawn in favor of the Defendant.
“2. Having found that the Plaintiff has successfully met his burden as above set out, it is the further finding of this Court that the Defendant has failed to show that any issues remain to be tried
Defendant insurance company appeals and argues that issues of fact remained as to whether plaintiff misrepresented the description and value of the boat and whether he failed to cooperate with the company.
After a review of the record and consideration of the briefs and argument of counsel, in light of the controlling principles of law we conclude that no reversible error has been made to appear. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. & Nat'l Marine Underwriters, Inc. v. Sany Sunn & Fleet Nat'l Bank, 595 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. F & R Builders v. Lowell Dunn Co., 364 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1979); Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am. v. Rodriguez, 347 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)