Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--699,68--699 |
| Citation | 220 So.2d 389 |
| Parties | Louis K. SMITH and Catherin Y. Smith, individually and as man and wife, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company authorized to do business in Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard N. Pelzner, Miami, for appellants.
Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming and Gary S. Barber, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., SWANN, J., and McDONALD, PARKER LEE, Associate Judge.
This appeal is by the plaintiffs and is from a final judgment for the defendants based on an order which granted their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.
The Smiths, plaintiffs below, were bona fide purchasers for value of a 1965 Cadillac automobile.
The defendants, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, issued a policy of insurance on the car insuring the Smiths against loss by theft. The car was stolen from them whereupon they notified the insuror and filed a claim under their policy. The police recovered the car and ascertained that it was a stolen vehicle when the Smiths had purchased it. The police ultimately returned the car to its rightful owners and the insuror refused to pay the plaintiffs for the theft of the car. This suit followed and the trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered final judgment on the theory that the plaintiffs' loss was not caused by the theft of the car but because of the return of the car to its true owners by the police. We reverse.
Originally, it was contended that the Smiths had no insurable interest in the car but that argument is no longer valid. See Skaff v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 35. The Florida title certificate was in the name of the Smiths; they had an insurable interest in the car; it was stolen from them and their insurance policy with the defendant insured them against theft. It follows that a cause of action was stated.
The question of whether the loss (damages) which they suffered was caused by the theft of the car or whether it was caused by virtue of the return of the car to its rightful owners by the police was a question of fact to be determined by a jury. See 29A Am.Jur. Insurance § 1134; VI Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice § 3777. In other words, the question to be determined is what was the proximate cause of the loss suffered by the Smiths? This we believe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...states have so held. See Skaff v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 215 So.2d 35 (Fla.App.1968); Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 220 So.2d 389 (Fla.App.1969); Treit v. Oregon Automobile Ins. Co., 262 Or. 549, 499 P.2d 335 (1972); Barnett v. London Assur. Corp., 138 Wash......
-
Grimm v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co.
...that bona fide purchaser for value of stolen automobiles have an 'insurable interest' therein. See, Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 220 So.2d 389 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1969); and Skaff v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 215 So.2d 35 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1968). The district co......
-
Cueto v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...but the rightful owner, it cannot extend to protect the named insured against the interest of the true owner." Smith v. State Farm, 220 So.2d 389, 389 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, and defendant Allstate's cross motion for summar......
-
Sauer v. Vigilant Ins. Co.
...such insurance policy into a title insurance policy as well as a policy against comprehensive loss. See, Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 220 So.2d 389 (Fla.App.1969). Plaintiff cannot insure himself by means of a comprehensive policy, against the claims of the true owner or ......