Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Victor Ginsberg

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided November 14, 2003No. 99-10983Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAnstead, Chief Justice

This case comes to us from a declaratory decree action in the federal court in which the central issue involves Allstate’s duty to defend its insured, Victor Ginsberg, in Elaine Scarfo’s state court invasion of privacy action against him. Allstate’s policy explicitly provides coverage to Ginsberg for claims of “invasion of rights of privacy.” Hence, the initial coverage issue appears to turn on whether Scarfo’s allegations state a cause of action for invasion of privacy under Florida law.4 I would hold that a cause of action has been properly alleged, and I concur only in the majority’s…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. National U. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1977
  2. Cason v. BaskinSupreme Court of Florida · 1944
  3. Agency for Health Care v. Assoc. Indus.Supreme Court of Florida · 1996
  4. Grissom v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
  5. State Farm Fire & Cas. v. CompupayDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API