Johnson v. Travelers Indem. Co., 438 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Johnson v. Travelers Indem. Co., 438 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Steadfast Insurance Company v. The Celebration Source, Inc. (ca11, 2018-05-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Steadfast Insurance Company v. The Celebration Source, Inc.
11th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
Co., 438 So. 2d 1045, 1046 (Fla. Dist.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Rabatie v. US SEC. Ins. Co. (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See also Beasley v. Wolf, 151 So.2d at 681 (analogous policy provision provided immediate coverage; under the particular policy, coverage existed even though no notification until after expiration of 30 days); cf. Johnson v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 438 So.2d 1045, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (distinguishing Beasley *1331 policy language; requiring notification within 30 days).
T. Sol JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY and Steven Tracy Williams, Appellees.
AR-315.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct 14, 1983.
438 So. 2d 1045
Per Curiam.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Dennis K. Larry of Clark, Partington, Hart, Hart & Johnson, Pensacola, for appellant.

Philip A. Bates of Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon, Pensacola, for appellee Travelers Indem. Co.

Robert G. Kerrigan of Kerrigan, Estess & Rankin, Pensacola and Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, Miami, for appellee Steven Tracy Williams.

PER CURIAM.

Johnson appeals a final summary judgment finding no coverage by Travelers for a 1980 Camaro automobile under a commercial automobile insurance policy issued to Johnson's law firm. We affirm.

Johnson argues that there was an oral contract which extended the same coverage[*1046] under the commercial policy as he previously had under a family policy issued by Travelers and also argues that the Camaro was covered even though it was not listed on the policy's declaration sheet.

In its summary judgment, the trial court specifically stated that even assuming Johnson had the family policy coverage, he had failed to notify Travelers within the prescribed thirty days that he had acquired the car.

The thirty-day notice requirement was not tied to premium notices as it was in Beasley v. Wolf, 151 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), where the link created an ambiguity precluding summary judgment. Here, the language of the thirty-day notice requirement is clear and unambiguous. The commercial policy did not list the Camaro as an insured vehicle, nor did Johnson notify Travelers of the acquisition of the car within thirty days of his acquiring it. Therefore, the Camaro was not covered by the commercial policy, even assuming the same family policy coverage had been extended. Lowe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 420 So.2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

The final summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

LARRY G. SMITH, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.