Neida's Boutique, Inc. v. Gabor & Co., 76-1405
| Citation | 348 So.2d 1196 |
| Decision Date | 19 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1405,76-1405 |
| Parties | NEIDA'S BOUTIQUE, INC., Appellants, v. GABOR AND COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene and Arnaldo Velez, Miami, for appellants.
West, Friesner, Goldman & Major, Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and Mark Hicks, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.
Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from a final order of dismissal entered in favor of appellees, defendants below.
Appellant's amended complaint sought damages from appellee, Gabor and Company, Inc., as agents for appellee, Parliament Insurance Company, for negligently failing to procure both a renewal of a prior fire insurance policy issued by Parliament and an increase in the amount of coverage on said policy. In addition, the amended complaint also sought damages from appellee Parliament by virtue of an alternate theory that a renewal policy with increased coverage was actually in full force and effect on the date that appellant's business suffered serious fire damage, which was shortly after the original policy of insurance had expired.
Appellees moved to dismiss the amended complaint for: failure to attach the policy of insurance that was allegedly in effect as of the date of the fire; failure to allege that the requested increase and extension of coverage was in fact obtainable under the terms and conditions as requested; and for the reason that there is no legal duty on behalf of an insurer to insure, merely because the same was requested, nor is there a duty for an agent to obtain insurance.
Thereafter, on April 13, 1976, the trial court entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to amend within ten days from the date of the entrance of said order. On May 12, 1976, a second amended complaint was filed by appellants followed on May 13, 1976, by the trial court's final order of dismissal. A post trial "motion for rehearing, request for reconsideration and motion to vacate" was denied and this appeal follows.
Appellant's basic contentions are twofold. First, appellant contends that its amended complaint stated a cause of action entitling it to receive damages. Second, even assuming said amended complaint did not state a cause of action, appellant argues that the court erred in entering its order of dismissal (for failure to file its second amended complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kozel v. Ostendorf
...abused its discretion. See, e.g., Johnson v. Landmark First Nat'l Bank, 415 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Neida's Boutique, Inc. v. Gabor & Co., 348 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 366 So.2d 883 (Fla.1978). Particularly given the extreme delay in amending the complaint, and th......
-
Sekot Laboratories, Inc. v. Gleason
...FOR REHEARING We deny defendants' motion for rehearing. Defendants argue that our decision conflicts with Neida's Boutique, Inc. v. Gabor & Co., 348 So.2d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 366 So.2d 883 (Fla.1978); Miami Auto Auction, Inc. v. Friendly Enterprises, Inc., 257 So.2d......
-
Dewitt v. Rossi
...Foundation, Inc. v. Schumacher, 355 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 361 So.2d 833 (Fla.1978); Neida's Boutique, Inc. v. Gabor and Company, Inc., 348 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 366 So.2d 883 (Fla.1978); Weiner v. Lozman and Weinberg, P.A., 340 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA......
-
Gust K. Newberg Const. Co. v. E.H. Crump & Co.
...appropriate premiums could be calculated at year's end. Such a situation is a far cry from this case. Neida's Boutique, Inc. v. Gabor & Co., 348 So.2d 1196 (Fla.App. 3d Dist.1977) is actually contrary to Newberg's position. In that case the court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint seekin......