Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Issue: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT AN INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT PROVIDE PLAINTIFF PROTECTION ACCORDING TO FLORIDA LAW.
| Area of Law: | Insurance Law, Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Insurance policy coverage; Preclusion of summary judgment; Extent of coverage |
| Jurisdiction: | Florida |
| Cited Cases: | 546 So. 2d 1051; 328 So. 2d 870; 500 So. 2d 608; 453 So. 2d 475; 698 So. 2d 828; 725 So. 2d 1197; 472 So. 2d 856; 819 So. 2d 740; 474 So. 2d 348 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 02/01/2003 |
The trial court must deny summary judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolving all conflicts in his or her favor, there remain genuine issues of material fact. Castellano v. Raynor, 725 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). If there are no disputed issues of fact, interpretation of a contract, including an insurance contract, is an issue of law that the trial court may resolve by summary judgment. The question whether, under the circumstances, a plaintiff fits within the coverage provided by a policy is, however, a question of fact that precludes summary judgment. “While it is the duty of the court to determine the extent of coverage, the trier of fact has the duty to determine whether the facts place the incident within that coverage.” Zordan v. Page, 500 So. 2d 608, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), disapproved on other grounds, Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1989 TA l "Zordan v. Page, 500 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), disapproved on other grounds, Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1989)" s "Zordan v. Page, 500 So. 2d 608, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), disapproved on other grounds, Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1989" c 1 ).
[…]