Case ID: so2d_422/html/1006-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. Woodrow KANTNER, Woodrow Kantner, Inc., Vatland-Oldsmobile-Pontiac-GMC, Inc., a Florida corporation, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Crawford & Company, and Joe Gallagher, Appellees.
    No. 82-596.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Nov. 24, 1982.
    Rehearings Denied in Part and Granted in Part Dec. 29, 1982.
    Ronald S. Fanaro of Bernard F. Grail, Jr., P.A., Vero Beach, for appellant.
    Don Brodbeck of MacMillan, Coutant & Brodbeck, Stuart, for appellees Woodrow Kantner and Woodrow Kantner, Inc.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment awarding the appellee, Woodrow Kantner, damages against his insurance company, the appellant, for the full amount available under his coverage for fire damage to his vehicle, a customized van. On appeal appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings of the trial court regarding the cause and extent of the damage to the vehicle. As we have noted on numerous occasions we are not empowered to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, even if our review of the record suggests that we might have come to a different conclusion. Elmore v. Enterprise Developers, Inc., 418 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). There is' some evidence in the record which, considered in a light more favorable to the appellee, indicates that the damage to the vehicle exceeded the amount of the coverage. Under these circumstances we are unable to conclude that the judgment is not supported by competent, substantial evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition for rehearing filed by appellant. We grant the request of ap-pellees on rehearing to delete footnote 1 of the opinion of November 24, 1982. Although we note that the appellees alleged in the trial court that they had tendered ownership of the van to appellant in exchange for full payment of the policy and also suggested at trial that appellant should be directed to make full payment under the policy and “At that point Utica would own the van”, we agree that ownership of the van after payment of the insurance coverage was not an issue on appeal. We adhere to the opinion of November 24, 1982 except for withdrawing footnote 1.

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.