Cooke v. Insurance Co. of North America, 94-01045
| Decision Date | 10 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-01045,94-01045 |
| Citation | 652 So.2d 1154 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D387 Bobby COOKE, d/b/a Continental Top Shop, Appellant, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bruce A. Walkley of Walkley & Walkley, Tampa, for appellant.
Jerry A. Setchel of Law Offices of J.A. Setchel, Tampa, for appellee.
The plaintiff, Bobby Cooke, d/b/a/ Continental Top Shop, appeals a final judgment entered after a directed verdict in his action seeking payment for a fire loss. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
On November 26, 1988, a fire destroyed Cooke's business. Prior to the fire, the Insurance Company of North America (INA) issued a commercial property insurance policy, effective July 14, 1988, providing a one-year term of coverage for Cooke's premises. After the fire, INA maintained that the policy, which had been purchased under a premium finance agreement, had been properly cancelled before the fire. Accordingly, Mr. Cooke filed this lawsuit. The dispute has resulted in an extensive development of the law concerning cancellation of premium-financed insurance policies. See Cooke v. Insurance Co. of North America, 603 So.2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), approved in part, quashed in part, 624 So.2d 252 (Fla.1993).
Following the supreme court's decision in 1993, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. At a pretrial conference on February 14, 1994, the parties identified three issues for trial, which were expressly incorporated into the uniform pretrial conference order as follows:
a.) whether the notice of intent to cancel the policies was mailed
b.) losses sustained by the Plaintiff under the policies
c.) whether the Plaintiff can recover in this case (1) the owner's interest in damaged building and (2) the owner's interest in a damaged vehicle.
The order does not incorporate by reference all pleaded issues or contain some generic description of additional issues for trial.
At trial, the plaintiff introduced the relevant insurance policy and had Mr. Cooke describe the fire and the resulting losses. Near the end of the first day of trial, the plaintiff rested, anticipating that INA would then attempt to prove cancellation of the policy. Instead, INA moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish required conditions precedent. INA maintained that Mr. Cooke was obligated to prove: (1) he had given notice of the fire to INA, (2) he had submitted an adequate proof of loss, and (3) INA had declined to pay the loss. Plaintiff's counsel indicated that he thought these issues had been resolved, and that the plaintiff would not be suing INA if it had paid the claim. The trial court reserved ruling on the motion and adjourned for the day.
The next morning, INA's counsel announced that he would present no evidence of cancellation and would rest without presenting a case. After further argument on the motion for directed verdict, the trial court concluded Mr. Cooke had not established a prima facia case and directed a verdict in favor of INA.
We conclude that the trial court erred for two reasons. First, INA never pleaded a condition precedent with the specificity and particularity necessary to create an issue for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(c) permits the plaintiff to plead performance of conditions precedent in general terms. If a defendant wishes to deny such performance, the denial must be alleged "specifically and with particularity." Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.120(c). In this case, Mr. Cooke alleged compliance with all conditions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions—Contract & Business Cases
...then the defendant has no right to demand proof from the claimant of the occurrence of such condition. See Cooke v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 652 So.2d 1154, 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Scarborough Assocs. v. Financial Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Dade Cnty., 647 So.2d 1001, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 199......
-
Vision I Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Company
...Therefore, Vision I argues that it no longer had to comply with conditions precedent prior to filing suit. Cooke v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 652 So.2d 1154, 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Ro-Ro, 1994 WL 16782171 at *4. In addition, Plaintiff argues that it cooperated to some degree, thus there is a fa......
-
PNC Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Roberts
...if they are not listed in the pretrial order or through a statement to the jury during closing arguments. Cooke v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 652 So.2d 1154, 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ; Vendola v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 474 So.2d 275, 279–80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Moreover, while there is no Florida......
-
Don Facciobene, Inc. v. Hough Roofing, Inc.
...or nonoccurrence."); Bank of Am., Nat'l Ass'n v. Asbury, 165 So.3d 808, 810–11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; Cooke v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 652 So.2d 1154, 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ; Paulk v. Peyton, 648 So.2d 772, 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Second, while awarding HRI the uncontested charges of $10,720 f......
-
Chapter 12-1 Introduction
...liability under an agreement).[154] See Bank of Am. v. Asbury, 165 So. 3d 808, 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Cooke v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 652 So. 2d 1154, 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Scarborough Assocs. v. Financial Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Dade Cnty., 647 So. 2d 1001, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)......
-
Case of the Year: Strasser v. Yalamanchi.
...claim. See Bondu, 473 So. 2d at 1310 (negligent loss of records); Herman, 576 So. 2d at 315 (negligent destruction of evidence); Brown, 652 So. 2d at 1154 (destruction of (52) Miller II, 650 So. 2d at 672; Herman, 576 So. 2d at 314. (53) Brinson, 685 So. 2d at 34; Bondu, 473 So. 2d at 1310.......