Court Opinion

ID: 9532524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:22:01.649322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:46.510884
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. My thinking is in concert with that expressed by the First District Court of Appeals, and I therefore vote to deny transfer.
The partial summary judgment granted initially by the trial court divided the insurance proceeds into two parts, one part to be applied by the bank in full satisfaction of its note and mortgage, and the other part to be applied by Ponderosa to the cost of reconstruction. As I see it, the opinion of the Court of Appeals more closely conforms to the written lease and contract provisions involved in the case than does the majority opinion. Ponderosa expected to bear the cost of reconstruction. Ponde-rosa expected to receive reimbursement for the cost of reconstruction from a single source, i.e., insurance proceeds made available by the bank after its claims upon them were first satisfied. Under the partial summary judgment first awarded, Ponde-rosa received exactly what it bargained for. It is entitled to no more.