Napoli v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 77-889
| Citation | 364 So.2d 878 |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-889,77-889 |
| Parties | Jack NAPOLI, Jr., a Deceased minor, by and through his parent and legal guardian, Jack Napoli, Sr., Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corp. authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
David R. Howland of Ress, Gomez, Rosenberg, Berke & Howland, P. A., North Miami, for appellant.
Peggy J. Tribbett of Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered after a directed verdict was granted to the insurance company on a question of coverage.
In this action for declaratory relief the question is whether Jack Napoli, Jr. was a "named insured" on a policy which carried death benefits only for those persons who were listed in Item 1 of the policy as "Named Insured and Address." It is undisputed the name Jack Napoli, Jr. does not appear on the policy but both the parents of this decedent testified they intended for him to be carried as a named insured and there is an endorsement of record which says "add Jack Napoli, Jr." and his date of birth.
While the testimony of the parents and the insurance company's endorsement do not conclusively prove Jack Napoli, Jr. was a named insured for death benefits coverage this evidence is sufficient prima facie to support the allegations in the count charging reformation of contract. The standard of proof in reformation of contracts cases is "clear and convincing" as was held in Allstate Insurance Company v. Vanater, 297 So.2d 293 (Fla.1974). However this is not the standard which must be met for purposes of a directed verdict. If a party presents evidence in support of its allegations that evidence is presumed to be true and every favorable conclusion or inference which can be reasonably and logically drawn from the evidence should be given to that party. All questions and inferences must be resolved against the party moving for a directed verdict and for the other party. Memorial Park, Inc. v. Spinelli, 342 So.2d 829 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). When the parents testified they called the company to add their son as a named insured and the company executed a change endorsement to "add son Jack Napoli, Jr. 2-2-54" it is logical and reasonable to conclude or infer Jack Napoli, Jr. was added as a named insured. Of course this might be proved otherwise by the evidence later presented...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GOLDEN DOOR JEWELRY v. Lloyds Underwriters
...Insurance § 441 (1981 & Supp.1990) (citing Gibson v. American Ins. Co., 146 Fla. 171, 200 So. 357 (1941); Napoli v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 364 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)). Equitable reformation has likewise been endorsed and affirmed in cases where, as here, the true owner or owners of t......
-
Sunshine Bottling Co. v. Tropicana Products, Inc.
...we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury's award on the promissory estoppel claim. See Napoli v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 364 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Second, the trial court erred in denying Sunshine's motion for costs and in granting Tropicana's motion for costs. ......
-
Pitofsky v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 79-2433
...(Fla.1974); Palilla v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 322 So.2d 46 (Fla.1st DCA 1975). Compare Napoli v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 364 So.2d 878 (Fla.4th DCA 1978) (holding that clear and convincing proof is not required to prevent the entry of a directed verdict against ......