Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Tel. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Small Fry, Inc.

    709 F. Supp. 1144 (S.D. Fla. 1989)   Cited 2 times
    Finding no duty to indemnify after concluding that insurer had no duty to defend

    The motion for a more definite statement has, for all practical purposes, taken the place of the former motion for compulsory amendment. Augustine v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1957). This Court finds that it must read the "more definite statement" in conjunction with the complaint in resolving the pending summary judgment motion.

  2. Ellis v. Crockett

    51 Haw. 45 (Haw. 1969)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that collateral estoppel is properly raised under HRCP Rule 12(b) where it “appears from the face of the complaint or from the taking of judicial notice or prior interrelated proceedings which are alluded to in the complaint”

    General damages are said to encompass all the damages which naturally and necessarily result from a legal wrong done. Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla. 1956). Such damages follow by implication of law upon proof of a wrong.

  3. Kaklamanos v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    796 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 12 times
    Ruling that damages sustaining an action for breach of contract must not be based upon speculation

    Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 345 So.2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Cruz v. Union Gen. Ins., 586 So.2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Monsanto Co. v. Fuqua, 280 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Walden. Since the Plaintiff did not incur any medical expenses which the Defendant did not reimburse, and any damages the Plaintiff might have sustained as a result of the alleged anticipatory breach are too speculative to sustain an action for breach of contract, this Court declines the opportunity to affirm the dismissal but remand with instructions to allow the Plaintiff to amend her complaint. Augusting v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1956) distinguishing Byers v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 73 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1954) (dismissal appropriate where on the face of the complaint damages are too speculative to be recoverable). The Court understands the Appellant's frustration at the inability to obtain relief for the insurer's alleged anticipatory breach.

  4. Rader v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    789 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 4 times
    In Rader, we found that the assignment of an appeal from a county court case to a single circuit court judge did not constitute a violation of procedural due process.

    Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 345 So.2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977): Cruz v. Union Gen. Ins., 586 So.2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Monsanto Co. v. Fuqua, 280 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Walden. Since the Plaintiff did not incur any medical expenses which the Defendant did not reimburse, and any damages the Plaintiff might have sustained as a result of the alleged anticipatory breach are too speculative to sustain an action for breach of contract, this Court declines the opportunity to affirm the dismissal but remand with instructions to allow the Plaintiff to amend her complaint. Augusting v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1956) distinguishing Byers v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 73 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1954) (dismissal appropriate where on the face of the complaint damages are too speculative to be recoverable). The Court understands the Appellant's frustration at the inability to obtain relief for the insurer's alleged anticipatory breach.