United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Park, 64-681
| Decision Date | 30 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-681,64-681 |
| Citation | 173 So.2d 162 |
| Parties | UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Bartholow PARK, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sherouse & Corlett, and Richard M. Gale, Miami, for appellant.
Martin Levinson, Perrine, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
This is an appeal by defendant from a summary final judgment entered for plaintiff by the Civil Court of Record in an action to recover under an insurance policy for the loss by theft of plaintiff's automobile.
The contract of insurance between the parties upon which suit was brought provided in pertinent part:
Defendant denied liability on the grounds that plaintiff did not suffer a loss of his automobile by theft and that the loss complained of was not covered by his policy of insurance.
Both plaintiff and defendant filed motions for summary judgment based on the pleadings, exhibits, and plaintiff's deposition.
The record shows that plaintiff entered into a transaction with a Mr. Ferroll of Ferroll Motors for the sale of plaintiff's automobile. Plaintiff was induced to give up possession of his automobile to Ferroll in return for a check for $800.00, a draft in the sum of $2,135.00 and the right of plaintiffs to hold the title to the automobile until the draft was paid. The draft was typed on the front of an envelope and plaintiff was told that the title certificate which he had signed in blank was enclosed in the sealed envelope on which the draft had been typed. The draft, upon due date, was presented to the bank for payment and dishonored. The envelope was opened at the time the draft was presented to the bank. It was at that time that plaintiff discovered that the envelope did not contain the title certificate, but only a blank piece of paper. Plaintiff further learned that Ferroll and Ferroll Motors had disappeared. Neither Ferroll nor plaintiff's automobile were found.
Thereafter plaintiff filed his claim with the defendant for the loss, by theft or larceny, of his automobile. Defendant refused payment and plaintiff sued and was awarded a summary final judgment from which the defendant appeals.
It is appellant's contention that the insurance contract provides that the defendant will pay for loss caused other than by collision to the owned automobile of the insured. Therefore, this provision of the insurance contract will not apply if the insured had sold or transferred the certificate of title to the automobile. Appellant further says that the intention of the appellee to sell his automobile coupled with his actual delivery of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fogel v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co.
...the thief never acquired lawful possession of the vehicle"].) The court reached the same conclusion in United Services Automobile Association v Park (Fla.Ct.App. 1965) 173 So.2d 162, 163, in which the plaintiff sold his car to the defendant, who paid for it with an invalid check. When the p......
-
Collins v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 78-338
...plaintiff's vehicle was stolen. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. of San Francisco v. Boyd, 45 So.2d 499 (Fla.1950); United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Park, 173 So.2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). And, since the thief intended to steal the vehicle at the time he acquired possession and all his representa......
-
Paris v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 78-807
...of this contention he argues that the trial court's decision is in conflict with this court's opinion in United Services Automobile Assoc. v. Park, 173 So.2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Although the policy provisions in Park and the instant case are similar, in our opinion, appellant's reliance......