Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 38579,38579 |
| Citation | 231 So.2d 193 |
| Parties | Louis K. SMITH and Catherine Y. Smith, Petitioners, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company authorized to do business in Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Peter S. Schwedock, Miami, for petitioners.
Gary S. Barber of Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Ft. Lauderdale, for respondent.
We agree with both petitioner and respondent that, there being no dispute as to the facts, the decision of the district court 1 returning the case to the trial court to 'determine the question of what was the proximate cause of the loss suffered by the Smiths' was in direct conflict with Paddock v. Bay Concrete Industries, Inc., 2 Russell & Axon v. Handshoe, 3 Automatic Canteen Company of America v. Butler, 4 and numerous decisions of this Court to the effect that where the evidence is undisputed, as here, the construction and interpretation of a contract is to be decided by the Court and not by the jury.
In the questioned decision the district court correctly decided the issues and we approve the reversal of the action of the trial court. The district court was also entirely correct in holding that the Smiths had an insurable interest in the automobile, following the First District's decision in the Skaff case. 5 The concluding paragraph, however, sending the case back for a jury trial, was in conflict with the decisions noted above and such paragraph is disapproved with directions to eliminate said paragraph from the decision and to remand the case for determination of allowable damages, under the express terms of the contract relating to loss occasioned by the temporary loss of use of the car. 6
It is so ordered.
6 The amount of such damages are specified in the policy of insurance.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions—Contract & Business Cases
...FOR 416.14 1. The interpretation of a contract is normally a matter of law that is determined by the court. Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 231 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla.1970); Strama v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 793 So.2d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Under certain circumstances, ......
-
Vernon v. Resolution Trust Corp.
...law. Where the facts are undisputed, as in this case, the construction of a contract is a question of law. Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 231 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla.1970). "Under Florida law, when the terms of a contract are unambiguous, the Court is bound to give the language therei......
-
Nat. Union Fire Ins. of Pittsburgh v. Brown
...1174 (11th Cir.1985); Payne v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 625 F.Supp. 1189, 1191 (S.D.Fla.1985); Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 231 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla.1970). III. A. INTRODUCTION The Insureds argue that they are entitled to partial summary judgment on several grounds. Fi......
-
Potashnick-Badgett Dredging Inc. v. Whitfield
...a contract is usually an issue of law for the court and not for the jury, where the facts are undisputed. See Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 231 So.2d 193 (Fla.1970). In the instant case, the material facts concerning the charter party are not in dispute. The agreement provided th......