Summary
holding that, in a declaratory action case, "courts may not be required to answer a hypothetical question or one based upon events which may or may not occur"
Summary of this case from Santa Rosa County v. Administration Commission, Division of Administrative HearingsOpinion
No. 62-208.
November 27, 1962. Rehearing Denied December 14, 1962.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Harold R. Vann, J.
Blackwell, Walker Gray and Melvin Boyd, Miami, for appellant.
Beigel, Teitelman Albert, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C.J., and HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
The plaintiff appeals an order dismissing its complaint for declaratory judgment. The defendant moved for the order upon the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action for declaratory relief.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiff had issued to the defendant a "Comprehensive, Dishonesty, Disappearance and Destruction Policy" and that the plaintiff, insurance company, had been advised by defendant that claims under the policy might be made because of certain alleged activities of a person formerly employed as a manager of defendant's business. The prayer was for a declaration by the Court that defendant was not entitled to recover under the policy and should be restrained from instituting action for recovery of any sums thereunder.
It has been held that the courts may not be required to answer a hypothetical question or one based upon events which may or may not occur. Anderson v. Dimick, Fla. 1955, 77 So.2d 867; Harris v. Harris, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So.2d 376. Doubt because of disputed questions of fact alone is not sufficient. Halpert v. Oleksy, Fla. 1953, 65 So.2d 762.
Affirmed.
HENDRY, J., dissents.