HomeMy WebLinkAbout0962 .
~ ( . ?
, ~
~he close oE the defendant's case. The aury returned a~verdict
in the amount of $3,500. ~
The two points presented on appeal involve the direc-
tion of the verdict for Johnson and ~he inclusion of various ~
improper elements of damage in the award.
~ ~ Without detailing all of tne evi.dence regarding notic~
to.the company, suffice to say that reasonable men could differ
- on whether Johnson complied with tihe notice requirements~of .the
- ~
policy. She was injured on March 7 but the company did not ~e-
_ ceive the notice at its home offi~ce until June 22. The reason
~ fo~r the delay was tha~ Johnson obtained a claim form from Fred
Coyne Chevrolet and mailed it to an address in West Palm Beach, ~
~ Florida, furnished to her by Goyne Chevrolet. When payment was
not Eorthcoming Johnson cal~ed the West Palm Beach office and-
was advised that the form should have been mailed to the com-
pany's home office. Apparently, the West Palm Beach office had -
sent the form on to appellant. Thereafte~, correspondence be- ~
tween Johnson and appellant became confused because ~ohnson had j
an automobile accident~in July and the proo~ of loss form sent _ ~
to ~he company began to show conflicting disability periods.
_ Johnson finally stopped sending proofs of loss, appellant
d a in ~an thina and Johnson's car was re ossessed. It . ~
stoPPe P Y 9 Y P ~
appears to us ~hat there were issues for the jury relata.ve to .
~
- compliance with the notice requirements of the policy and, if
notice was Iate, whe'ther the company was prejudiced by the late ~
notice. Also, a fact issue ^xist~ regarding the ageney of Fred ~
~Coyne Chevrol~t i.n furnishing claim f~rms for.purposes of bind-
ing appellanti. Therefore, it was reversible error to direct a
• i;
verdict for Johnson on the question of liability. . -
The trial court instructed the jury~to consider as =
~
~ damayes the loss of value and use ot the aatomabile, transporta-
- tion expenses incidental to the loss of use of her car and long
distance telephone calls. The trial court did not instruct-the ~
_ ~
jury to consider the amount due on the policy as appellant.con- ~
tends. '
~ ,
~ - 2- ~ooK 38~ ~a~~ ~