Case Name: ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI and Insurance Network Systems, Inc., Appellants, v. Morton SCHWARTZ and Sylvia Schwartz, his wife, Sandor Gottlieb and Faye S. Gottlieb, his wife, and P.J.K. Insurance, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-05-29
Citations: 675 So. 2d 194
Docket Number: Nos. 95-0014, 95-1112
Parties: ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI and Insurance Network Systems, Inc., Appellants, v. Morton SCHWARTZ and Sylvia Schwartz, his wife, Sandor Gottlieb and Faye S. Gottlieb, his wife, and P.J.K. Insurance, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 675
Pages: 194–194

Head Matter:
ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI and Insurance Network Systems, Inc., Appellants, v. Morton SCHWARTZ and Sylvia Schwartz, his wife, Sandor Gottlieb and Faye S. Gottlieb, his wife, and P.J.K. Insurance, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
Nos. 95-0014, 95-1112.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 29, 1996.
Rehearing, Clarification and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 9, 1996.
Kenneth E. Cohen of Kroll & Tract, Miami, for appellants.
Joe N. Unger of Law Offices of Joe N. Unger, P.A., Miami, and Harry Tempkins of Newman & Tempkins, P.A., Miami Beach, for Appellees-Schwartz & Gottlieb.
Paul H. Field of Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham, Lane & Ford, P.A., Miami, for Appellee-P.J.K. Insurance Co.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Insurers appeal from two final judgments in favor of mortgagees. As to the first, on the merits, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. As to the second, awarding attorney's fees and costs, we affirm.
The only substantive reversal is with respect to the award of $96,247 for personal property loss. This was error. The mortgagee clause unequivocally limits loss payment for mortgage holders to "covered loss or damage to buildings or structures." The findings of the trial court as to reformation and receipt, while also erroneous, do not affect the result; namely, the obligation of appellant to pay for the loss of the building. Appellant's remaining arguments are not persuasive.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.