Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractjurisdictionstatute
contractjurisdiction

Related Cases

Driving Force Technologies, Inc. v. Panda Distribution, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 1645634
View Case »
Gengler v. United States Through Department of Defense and Navy, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2006 WL 8458837
View Case »
Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431
View Case »
Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626
View Case »
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119, 65 USLW 2551, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1062
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Quarty v. Insurance Co. of North America, 244 So.2d 181

Facts

On March 18, 1965, North America issued a Homeowners Insurance Policy in New York insuring the contents of Quarty's dwelling in New York. While this policy was in full force and effect, Quarty's home was burglarized, resulting in the theft of approximately $18,000 worth of personal possessions. The burglary was reported to the New York police and North America. Quarty later moved to St. Petersburg, Florida, and notified North America of her change of residence. Over a year and a half after the burglary, North America denied coverage based on the policy provision requiring that any suit must be commenced within twelve months after the loss.

On March 18, 1965, North America issued a Homeowners Insurance Policy in New York insuring the contents of Quarty's dwelling in New York. While this policy was in full force and effect, Quarty's home was burglarized, resulting in the theft of approximately $18,000 worth of personal possessions.

Issue

Whether Florida law applies to the insurance contract issued in New York, given that the insured moved to Florida after the loss occurred.

Whether Florida law applies to the insurance contract issued in New York, given that the insured moved to Florida after the loss occurred.

Rule

The court applied the principle that a contract executed in another state by residents of that state, involving property in that state, is not subject to Florida law unless there are sufficient contacts with Florida to justify its jurisdiction.

The court applied the principle that a contract executed in another state by residents of that state, involving property in that state, is not subject to Florida law unless there are sufficient contacts with Florida to justify its jurisdiction.

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts of the case in light of the applicable legal principles, noting that the insurance contract was made in New York, the premiums were paid in New York, the property was located in New York, and the loss occurred in New York. The court concluded that Quarty's subsequent move to Florida did not establish sufficient contact with the transaction to invoke Florida's jurisdiction or statutes, particularly the one-year limitation for filing suit.

The court analyzed the facts of the case in light of the applicable legal principles, noting that the insurance contract was made in New York, the premiums were paid in New York, the property was located in New York, and the loss occurred in New York.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the summary final judgment in favor of the Insurance Company of North America, ruling that Quarty's claim was barred by the policy's one-year limitation for filing suit.

The court affirmed the summary final judgment in favor of the Insurance Company of North America, ruling that Quarty's claim was barred by the policy's one-year limitation for filing suit.

Who won?

Insurance Company of North America prevailed in the case because the court found that the insurance policy was governed by New York law, and Quarty's claim was time-barred under the policy's provisions.

Insurance Company of North America prevailed in the case because the court found that the insurance policy was governed by New York law, and Quarty's claim was time-barred under the policy's provisions.

You must be