Opinion · Florida Court Opinions

OGDEN v. UNION MARINE GENERAL INS., 163 So.2d 343 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1964)

R.L. OGDEN & A.G. OGDEN, D/B/A OGDEN TRUCKING Co., APPELLANTS, v. THEUNION MARINE & Gen. Ins. Co., Ltd., APPELLEE., 163 So. 2d 343 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

Type: Opinion
Court: Florida Court Opinions
Jurisdiction: Florida
Date: 1964-04-14
Topic: general

OGDEN v. UNION MARINE GENERAL INS., 163 So.2d 343 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1964) R.L. OGDEN AND A.G. OGDEN, D/B/A OGDEN TRUCKING COMPANY, APPELLANTS, v. THEUNION MARINE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, APPELLEE.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed OGDEN v. UNION MARINE GENERAL INS., 163 So.2d 343 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1964). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

OGDEN v. UNION MARINE GENERAL INS.,163 So.2d 343(Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1964)

R.L. OGDEN AND A.G. OGDEN, D/B/A OGDEN TRUCKING COMPANY, APPELLANTS, v. THE

UNION MARINE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, APPELLEE.

No. 63-645.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 14, 1964.

An appeal from the Civil Court of Record for Dade County; James H. Earnest, Judge.

Edward L. Walton, Miami, for appellants.

Batchelor, Brodnax Guthrie, Miami Springs, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CARROLL and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Counsel having conceded during oral argument that in the event Case No. 63-601 American Universal Ins. Co. v. Ogden,163 So.2d 346, resulted in an affirmance of the trial court's judgment, the issues presented by this appeal would be moot.

This appeal is from a final summary judgment finding no coverage under an insurance policy issued by the appellee. The opinion in Case No. 63-601, released thisPage 344date, having resulted in an affirmance of the final judgment in favor of the appellees under review in that action, the question as to the propriety of the summary judgment in this action is now moot.

The appellants have also questioned the correctness of the cost judgment entered by the trial court. Reviewing this action in accordance with the principles announced in Spencer v. Florida-Georgia Tractor Company, Fla.App. 1959,114 So.2d 466; Butler v. Borowsky, Fla.App. 1960,120 So.2d 656; Reynolds v. Aument, Fla.App. 1962,137 So.2d 832, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in this particular. Therefore, in accordance with the views expressed above, the summary final judgment is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.