Case Name: Lafayette HART, Jr., Appellant, v. BANKERS FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-01-31
Citations: 320 So. 2d 485
Docket Number: No. 74-218
Parties: Lafayette HART, Jr., Appellant, v. BANKERS FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: OWEN, C. J„ and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 320
Pages: 485–487

Head Matter:
Lafayette HART, Jr., Appellant, v. BANKERS FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 74-218.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 31, 1975.
On Rehearing March 27, 1975.
E. Hugh Chappell, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
James A. Smith, Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Bloomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the briefs and oral argument we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict and entering a final judgment thereon. In particular, the evidence at that stage of the proceeding did not reflect compliance with Section 627.-728(5), F.S., regarding proof of mailing of notice of cancellation of insurance policies. Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, to the trial court for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN, C. J" and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
. It is to be noted that the entry of the directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's ease based upon the then existing facts and circumstances before the trial court was contrary to the principles enunciated in Tillman v. Baskin, Fla.1972, 260 So.2d 509; Simon v. Pope, Fla.App.1973, 279 So.2d 54; cf. Rule 6.16, F.A.R. Following the presentation of a prima facie case by plaintiff the trial judge should not have undertaken to weigh the evidence before the end of all the testimony.
. In passing we would observe that contrary to the finding made by the trial court, there exists a serious question with respect to whether the defendant insurance company waived its claim of cancellation by acceptance of what appears to have been the balance of an increased down payment towards the total premium; hopefully, this issue as well as the issue regarding proof of mailing will be fully developed during the course of the new trial. See 18 Fla.Jur., Insurance, sec. 661.