Skaff v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. J-208,J-208 |
| Citation | 215 So.2d 35 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Mitchell SKAFF, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee. |
Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Boyer, Sulik & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, Jacksonville, for appellee.
The plaintiff, Mitchell Skaff, has appealed an adverse summary judgment in his unsuccessful action on an insurance claim which the defendant, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, has refused to pay.
The facts are undisputed and have been stipulated to by counsel for both parties.
The appellant Skaff obtained a comprehensive fire and theft insurance policy on a 1964 Cadillac automobile for which he had paid his brother-in-law, a used car dealer, $4,110.90. The Cadillac was in fact a stolen automobile that had come to Florida with an Alabama registration by use of which a Florida title certificate was obtained. Some eight months after the appellant's purchase, the Cadillac was again stolen and was found later in a burned condition. That appellant was an innocent purchaser for value without notice that the Cadillac was stolen is a fact that was stipulated to as was the fact that the automobile was later stolen by some person unknown to him.
The appellee's successful defense to the claim was based on the argument that no insurable interest is obtained by an innocent purchaser of a stolen automobile because the seller possessed no interest which he could transfer.
The question presented by this argument, simple as it may appear, has never been decided by the appellate tribunals of this State. Nor have the courts of other states found unanimity in their decisions when deciding this question.
Cases following the appellee's contention as stated above are Hessen v. Iowa Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, 195 Iowa 141, 190 N.W. 150, 30 A.L.R. 657, and Napavale, Inc. v. United National Indemnity Company, 169 Cal.App.2d 119, 336 P.2d 984, while Barnett v. London Assurance Corporation, 138 Wash. 673, 245 P. 3, 46 A.L.R. 526, and Norris v. Alliance Insurance Company of Philadelphia, 123 A. 762, 1 N.J.Misc. 315, hold that the purchaser of a stolen automobile's right to possession against all but the rightful owner is a right that gives the purchaser an insurable interest.
We prefer the logic of the holdings in Barnett, supra, and Norris, supra. The reason for the rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scarola v. Insurance Co. of North America
...33 A.L.R.3d 1417.) While some jurisdictions have adopted the position taken by the courts below (see, e.g., Skaff v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 215 So.2d 35 (Fla.App.); Barnett v. London Assur. Corp., 138 Wash. 673, 245 P. 3; Norris v. Alliance Ins. Co., 1 N.J.Misc. 315, 123 A. 762) ot......
-
Duncan v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...an insurable interest in such cases. The modern trend of authority is in this direction. See, Skaff v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Fla., 215 So.2d 35 (Fla.App.1968); Scarola v. Insurance Co. of No. America, 31 N.Y.2d 411, 340 N.Y.S.2d 630, 292 N.E.2d 776 (1972); Barnett v. Lo......
-
Butler v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 14836-PR
...of the requisite relationship. Granite State Insurance Co. v. Lowe, Ala.App., 362 So.2d 240 (1978); Skaff v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 215 So.2d 35 (Fla.App.1968); Reznick v. Home Insurance Co., 45 Ill.App.3d 1058, 360 N.E.2d 461 (1977); Scarola v. Insurance Company of North Am......
-
Webb v. M.F.A. Mut. Ins. Co.
...arguments and find them to be without merit. Judgment affirmed. COYTE and SMITH, JJ., concur. 1 Accord, Skaff v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 215 So.2d 35 (Fla.App.1968); Reznick v. Home Insurance Co., 45 Ill.App.3d 712, 4 Ill.Dec. 395, 360 N.E.2d 461 (1977); Savarese v. Hartford......