31 Fla. L. Weekly D14a

Insurance — Excess coverage — Error to enter summary judgment finding that umbrella policy provides coverage for claim, where there are genuine issues of material fact relating to affirmative defenses and counterclaim for rescission which may ultimately affect coverage

NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a foreign corporation, Appellant, vs. SEITLIN & COMPANY, a Florida corporation, and CARLOS MANUEL CHOMAT and ELENA QUINTANA CHOMAT, Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D05-488. Consolidated: 3D05-501. L.T. Case No. 02-16565. Opinion filed December 21, 2005. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A. Genden, Judge. Counsel: Lane Reese Aulick Summers & Ennis, and William S. Reese; McKenna Long & Aldridge, and J. Randolph Evans (Washington, D.C.), and Stefan Passantino, for appellant. Bernstein, Chackman & Liss, and Julia Luyster, and Steven J. Chackman (Hollywood); Hunter Williams & Lynch, and Christopher J. Lynch, for appellees.

(Before GERSTEN, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.)

(PER CURIAM.) Northern Insurance Company of New York (“Northern”), appeals the trial court’s order of final summary judgment in favor of Seitlin & Company (“Seitlin”). We reverse.

The trial court entered summary judgment finding Northern’s umbrella insurance policy provides coverage for the Carlos Manuel Chomat (“Chomat”) claim. In its pleadings, Northern raised affirmative defenses and asserted a counterclaim for rescission of the policy.

Because there are genuine issues of material fact relating to the affirmative defenses and the counterclaim, which may ultimately affect the coverage, we determine that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment on the coverage. See Griffin v. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 752 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for determination of all issues.

Reversed and remanded.