Alexander v. Allstate Ins. Co., 79-38

Decision Date10 September 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-38,79-38
PartiesJack ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

John R. Overchuck of Maher, Overchuck & Langa, Orlando, for appellant.

Reinald Werrenrath, III of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, Orlando, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying a directed verdict and from the resultant final judgment in an uninsured motorists coverage case wherein declaratory relief was sought. We reverse.

The question on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence of non-compliance with the insurance policy requirements. We find the evidence insufficient to support the carrier's allegation.

Jack Alexander was the victim of an accident in Kentucky where a car forced his car off the road. His car was damaged and he was injured. The next day, within twenty-four hours of the accident, Allstate was notified of the accident. The police were not notified. The insurance policy required: "The accident must be reported within twenty-four hours to the proper authorities. We must be notified within thirty days." Appellee, Allstate, urges the failure of the insured to report the accident to the police breached the policy requirement of reporting "to the proper authorities." Appellant says the policy is ambiguous because it does not define or explain what "proper authorities" means. While we quite agree the policy would be clearer if it said what it obviously meant-police-we do not need to decide the question of whether the policy is ambiguous. A lot of litigation would be unnecessary if insurance policy drafters would try to write without using ambiguous phrasing. Why not say the word police when that is what is meant? Or if the drafter likes to use many words where one would suffice, he could say "notify that governmental authority charged with the investigation of motor vehicle collisions" or some such bloated phraseology. In any event, it is our determination that the failure to notify the police was not required of this insured because there was inadequate proof he had ever received the insurance policy which set out that requirement and even if there was proof of delivery, there was no prejudice to Allstate because of the failure to notify.

Jack Alexander testified he never received the policy before the accident and the first time he saw the policy was after the accident when he went to Sears to get a copy of one. To rebut the testimony of Alexander, Allstate provided testimony from William Lipford, a claims representative for Allstate. He is not a sales agent for Allstate but he said he was familiar with the procedure of Allstate and how the agents sent out policies. He said the Alexander policy was a new edition of the standard auto policy and after extensive objection and voir dire by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Higgins
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 3, 2001
    ...issue had adequate knowledge of the routine mailing practice to testify about it is a close question. See Alexander v. Allstate Ins. Co., 388 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We do not reach it in light of the order for a new We agree with the trial court that the original complaint file......
  • Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Alvarez
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1983
    ...merely represented two conflicting lines of authority from which lower courts might and did choose, compare Alexander v. Allstate Insurance Co., 388 So.2d 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bernstein v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 294 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Equitable Life Assurance Society of......
  • Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Berdecia
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 2015
    ...1373 ). In other words, the witness must be “well enough acquainted with the activity to give the testimony.” Alexander v. Allstate Ins. Co., 388 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (citing Holt v. Grimes, 261 So.2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) ). In the mortgage foreclosure context, proper authen......
  • Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Selley
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • July 10, 1997
    ...involved in accident exchanged information, it was not a traditional "hit-and-run" within meaning of policy); Alexander v. Allstate Insurance Co., 388 So.2d 592 (Fla.App.1980) (notice provision requiring that accident be "reported within twenty-four hours to the proper authorities" not enfo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT