Sturgis v. Canal Ins. Co. of Greenville, S. C.
| Decision Date | 13 July 1960 |
| Citation | 122 So.2d 313 |
| Parties | Hezekiah STURGIS, Petitioner, v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA, a corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Wesley A. Fink, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Cobb & Cole, Daytona Beach, and Boyd, Jenerette & Leemis, Jacksonville, for respondent.
The decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, has been certified to us, by that court for review by certiorari, as a decision that passes upon a question of great public interest within the purview of Section 4(2), Article V, of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. 1
Our pursual of the District Court's opinion, 2 in the instant case, discloses that the Circuit Court of Volusia County certified the following question to it for an answer pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 4.6, 31 F.S.A.:
'Where plaintiff in an automobile accident suit has recovered a judgment in excess of the policy limits of the defendant's insurance policy, and where said policy contains the following provision:
"any person or organization, or the legal representative thereof who has secured such judgment or written agreement shall thereafter be entitled to recover under this policy to the extent of the insurance afforded by this policy.'
'And where plaintiff has received payment of said policy limits but holds an unsatisfied judgment as to the excess, may the plaintiff maintain a suit directly against the insurer for recovery of the judgment beyond the limits of the policy, based upon the alleged negligence or bad faith of the insurer in the conduct or handling of said suit.'
The petitioner contends here, as he did in the District Court, that our decision in the case of Auto Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Shaw, 134 Fla. 815, 184 So. 852, 855, requires an affirmative answer to this question.
The judgment creditor in the Shaw case had the benefit of the following policy provision:
* * *' (Emphasis supplied.)
The District Court of Appeal after carefully distinguishing the difference in the terminology used in the insurance policy involved in the Shaw case from that involved in the instant cause answered the certified question in the negative.
From our examination of the authorities cited in the briefs of counsel and from our independent research...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Candelora
...Co., 170 F.Supp. 276 (D.Del.1958); Canal Insurance Co. of Greenville S.C. v. Sturgis, 114 So.2d 469 (Fla.App.1959), aff'd., 122 So.2d 313 (Fla.1960); Francis v. Newton, 75 Ga.App. 341, 43 S.E.2d 282 (1947); Kennedy v. Kiss, 89 Ill.App.3d 890, 45 Ill.Dec. 273, 412 N.E.2d 624 (1st Dist.1980);......
-
Burton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
...Ins. Co., N.D.Fla., 1954, 118 F.Supp. 568, 569; cf. Canal Ins. Co. v. Sturgis, Fla.D.Ct.App., 1959, 114 So.2d 469, 115 So.2d 774; Fla., 1960, 122 So.2d 313; see 7A Appleman, Insurance § 4712 (1962). 15 Not only should decrees, conditional or final, be molded to meet the exigencies of the ca......
-
Kelly v. Williams, 79-162
... ... Rouse, Jr., Daytona Beach, for appellee, Allstate Ins. Co ... SHARP, Judge ... Kelly ... (1938) (insurance clause provided for direct suit by victim) with Canal Ins. Co. of Greenville, S. C. v. Sturgis, 122 So.2d 313 (Fla.1959) (absent ... ...
-
Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York
...See Canal Insurance Co. of Greenville, S.C. v. Sturgis, 114 So.2d 469 (Fla.App.1st, 1959), affirmed in Sturgis v. Canal Insurance Company of Greenville, S.C., 122 So.2d 313 (Fla.1960).3 Of course it is possible for a contract to be intended for the benefit of both the formal parties and the......