Case Name: John W. ANDREWS and Sue Andrews, Appellants, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-02-28
Citations: 837 So. 2d 1190
Docket Number: No. 2D01-4852
Parties: John W. ANDREWS and Sue Andrews, Appellants, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
Judges: DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ. Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 837
Pages: 1190–1191

Head Matter:
John W. ANDREWS and Sue Andrews, Appellants, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
No. 2D01-4852.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb. 28, 2003.
J. Troy Andrews of Andrews Law Group, Tampa, for Appellants.
Guy E. Burnette, Jr., and Yoniece M. Dixon of Butler Pappas Weihmuller, Katz Craig, LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.
John W. Andrews and Sue Andrews appeal the directed verdict entered in favor of United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in their action against USAA for breach of the insurance contract covering property they used as a rental residential dwelling. We reverse.
USAA moved for a directed verdict on the issue of whether the Andrews' property was vacant for purposes of the following clause, which excluded coverage for "loss on the Described Location if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss. A dwelling being constructed is not considered vacant." In directing a verdict in favor of USAA, the trial court found that the dwelling was not being constructed and that it was vacant. While the trial court correctly directed a verdict on the issue of whether the dwelling was being constructed, it abused its discretion in directing a verdict on the issue of whether the dwelling was vacant because different conclusions can be drawn from the evidence in this case on that issue. See Moisan v. Frank K. Kriz, Jr., M.D., P.A., 531 So.2d 398, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Thus, whether the Andrews' dwelling was vacant was an issue for the jury to decide.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ. Concur.