In the Supreme Court of Florida
|
|
- Maurice Turner
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO.: SC STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LLOYD BEVERLY and EDITH BEVERLY, Respondents. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Respectfully submitted, BUTLER, PAPPAS, WEIHMULLER KATZ, CRAIG, LLP 777 South Harbour Island Boulevard, Suite 500 Tampa, Florida Telephone (813) Facsimile (813) and- RUSSO APPELLATE FIRM, P.A Southwest 76th Street Miami, Florida Telephone (305) Facsimile (305) Counsel for Petitioner
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS... 2 ARGUMENT... 6 CONCLUSION...10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...11 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FONT STANDARD...11 i
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES: Arab Termite & Pest Control of Florida Inc. v. Jenkins 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1982)... 6 Clifton v. United Cas. Ins. Co. of America 31 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)... 6 Vest v Travelers Ins. Co. 753 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2000)... 6 Wollard v. Lloyd s and Companies of Lloyd s 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1983)... passim OTHER AUTHORITIES: , Fla. Stat.... passim ii
4 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Second District s decision creates express and direct conflict with this Court s decision in Wollard v. Lloyd s and Companies of Lloyd s, 439 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1983). In Wollard, this Court held that where an insured is forced to sue an insurer to recover policy benefits and the insurer thereafter settles the suit before judgment is entered, the insured may recover attorney s fees under , Fla. Stat., even though that statute only provides for an award of fees [u]pon the rendition of a judgment or decree by any of the courts of this state against an insurer and in favor of an insured. The Wollard rationale was that an insurer should not be able to avoid the fee statute through the simple expedient of settling the suit to avoid rendition of a judgment. Here, the Second District has reversed a judgment in favor of the insurer and remanded for the trial court to consider awarding fees to the insureds despite the fact that the decision affirmatively shows (a) that the insureds were not forced to sue as they had a contractual appraisal clause available to them and their claim was paid in full pursuant to appraisal; and (b) that the insurer did not avoid rendition of a judgment by settling a suit, but rather paid the appraisal award in accordance with the provisions of the parties insurance contract. The Second District s decision thus conflicts on its face with Wollard, indicating that an insurer may be required to pay fees under even though 1
5 its insured has not been forced to sue to recover policy benefits, and even though the insurer did not thereafter settle to avoid a judgment. Resolution of the conflict is needed to halt an ever increasing abuse of both Wollard and Wollard was an expansion beyond the actual wording of in the first instance. The Second District s decision goes well beyond Wollard, creating conflict as to what must be shown to justify a award of fees. A statute intended to discourage unnecessary litigation with attorney s fees as a penalty has come full circle to where it encourages such litigation with attorney s fees as the reward. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS This case arose out of a claim for property insurance benefits by the Respondents Lloyd and Edith Beverly ( Beverlys or insureds ), as a result of damage to their residence property from Hurricane Charley on August 13, (A 2). 1 On August 19, 2004, the Beverlys reported the claim to Petitioner State Farm Florida Insurance Company ( Petitioner or State Farm ), seeking benefits under their homeowner s policy. (A 2). The Beverlys claim that an initial adjuster told them there was no coverage for a barn and shed, an account disputed by State Farm as was confirmed by State Farm s payment for the barn and shed along with 1 Reference to the Second District s Opinion is made by page number, and a copy of the Opinion has been attached hereto as an Appendix for ease of reference. Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis in this brief has been supplied by undersigned counsel. 2
6 the rest of the building amounts awarded in appraisal. (A 2,5). The Beverlys policy contained terms as to post-loss obligations and conditions that were to be fulfilled by the insureds to assist State Farm in adjusting the loss (A 3, n 1), stating that: No action shall be brought unless there has been compliance with the policy provisions. (A 3, n 1). The policy also has an appraisal clause which may be invoked by either party to set the loss amount if, after fulfillment of post-loss conditions, the parties disagree on the amount. (A 5, n 2). One of the policy post-loss conditions required the insureds to provide State Farm a sworn proof of loss, with enumerated details that a property insurer needs to evaluate a claimed loss, including verification of the insureds interest in the property, the date and cause of the loss, specifications of building damages and estimates for repair, an inventory of damaged personal property, and receipts for additional living expenses (which are paid on an as incurred basis). (A 3, n 1). Viewing the facts in the insureds favor on this point, the insureds delivered a sworn proof of loss to State Farm on September 29, 2004, with some but not all of the required information. (A 4). Two days later, on October 1, 2004, the insureds opted to file a lawsuit although State Farm had been given no time to process the proof of loss and adjust the claim and although the insureds also had the option of 3
7 having the loss amount set by the parties out-of-court appraisal process. (A 4). 2 Despite the insureds filing of a suit, State Farm continued on with the loss adjustment process throughout October and November 2004, meeting and corresponding with the insureds and their public adjuster and making payments as various aspects of the loss were verified. (A 4). Receipt of an engineering report resulted in State Farm making a payment of $46, on November 5, (A 4). And, [o]n November 22, 2004, State Farm met the Beverlys and [public adjuster] Epic to inspect some of the damaged personal property and to review ALE receipts. The next day, State Farm paid the Beverlys $65, for building damage and ALE of $ (A 4). After receipt of the November 23, 2004 payment, the insureds did not communicate again with State Farm for six months. (A 5). Then, in May of 2005 the Beverlys sent State Farm an estimate claiming $594, in damages. (A 5). State Farm invoked appraisal in July of 2005 when the parties had clearly reached a point of disagreement as to the loss amount. (A 5). The insureds agreed to appraisal, and asked that all coverages be set by appraisal, meaning the coverages for building, personal property, and additional living expenses. (A 5). 2 The appraisal clause provides in part: Appraisal. If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either one can demand that the amount of loss be set by appraisal. If either makes a written demand for appraisal, each shall select a competent, independent appraiser. (A 4, n 2). 4
8 The coverages then were determined in appraisal. (A 5-6). The appraisers issued three separate awards - one as to each of the three types of coverage - and State Farm timely paid the awards upon issuance. (A 5-6). All policy benefits having been paid pursuant to the contractual appraisal process, State Farm sought to end the lawsuit that the insureds had filed just six weeks after the hurricane. (A 6-7). State Farm noted that it had not breached the contract; that appraisal had resolved the insureds claims in full; and that State Farm had timely paid the appraisal awards when issued by the appraisal panel. (A 7). State Farm also noted that the suit had been premature in any event and that the insureds had not complied with the post-loss obligations imposed on them by the policy as conditions precedent to filing any lawsuit. (A 7). The insureds responded saying that State Farm had initially denied coverage for the barn and shed, and that State Farm waived the policy post-loss conditions. (A 7). The main focus of the insureds response, however, was that State Farm could not avoid its obligation to pay attorney s fees and that it had confessed judgment by tendering additional benefits after the lawsuit was filed. (A 7). The trial court granted State Farm s motion, and entered final summary judgment in its favor. (A 7). The insureds then filed an appeal to the Second District. (A 1). As the insureds had been paid in full for all hurricane losses, the only item at stake in the appellate proceedings was - and is - attorney s fees, as the 5
9 Second District noted: We surmise that, at its core, this case is about attorney s fees under section (A 7). Citing its own decisions interpreting Wollard, including Clifton v. United Cas. Ins. Co. of America, 31 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), the Second District reversed the trial court. Although the insureds did not have a judgment in their favor as a basis for fees, and had no showing of a forced suit and confession of judgment to seek the fees via Wollard, the Second District remanded for further proceedings on the claim for attorney s fees saying that fact issues remain. (A 10). Because conflict has been created by the misapplication of Wollard, Petitioner initiated these discretionary review proceedings. ARGUMENT Conflict subject to review by this Court is created by a district court s misapplication of rules announced in this Court s decisions. See, e.g., Vest v Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Fla. 2000); Arab Termite & Pest Control of Florida Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039,1041 (Fla. 1982). Just such a misapplication has occurred in the Second District s decision. Where, as here, the record shows that the insured had an available appraisal clause and that the insured received all policy benefits pursuant to appraisal, then as a matter of law Wollard does not - and should not - be applied to create entitlement to attorney s fees under Under the actual wording of that 6
10 statute, attorney s fees may only be awarded to an insured [u]pon the rendition of a judgment... against an insurer and in favor of any... insured[.] In Wollard, this Court decided that, despite the statute s upon rendition of a judgment language, the statute should be interpreted also to allow fees where insureds have been forced to sue due to an insurer s wrongful withholding of benefits, and the insurer has settled the claim after suit merely to avoid the rendition of a judgment that would trigger the right to attorney s fees. When the insurance company has agreed to settle a disputed case, it has, in effect, declined to defend its position in the pending suit. Thus, the payment of the claim is, indeed, the functional equivalent of a confession of judgment or a verdict in favor of the insured. 439 So. 2d at 218. Thus, to fit within Wollard s interpretation of the term judgment in as including a confession of judgment, there must be showings that the insured was forced to sue to obtain policy benefits, and that the insurer settled the claim before entry of an actual judgment thus indicating that it had declined to defend its position in the pending suit. 439 So. 2d at 218. The face of the Second District s Opinion, however, affirmatively reflects for the reader that neither showing was - or could be - made here. The Opinion recites that the insureds had an appraisal clause in their insurance contract with State Farm that either party could invoke to get the loss paid: If you 7
11 and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either one can demand that the amount of loss be set by appraisal. (A 5, n 2). The factual recitals in the Opinion thus show that the insureds opted to file a lawsuit (a mere six weeks after the hurricane), but not that they were forced to file a lawsuit. The Opinion further reflects that there was no settlement by State Farm indicating that it had declined to defend its position in a lawsuit. On the contrary, the Opinion shows that State Farm simply proceeded with adjusting the loss and then invoked appraisal when a point of disagreement as to the amount of loss was reached - just as provided in the parties contract. And, the Opinion affirmatively shows, State Farm paid the appraisal awards when they were issued, including the amounts designated for the barn and the shed. (A 5). Payment of an appraisal award pursuant to contract is in no way a Wollard confession of judgment. The Second District has profoundly misapprehended the Wollard confession of judgment doctrine and confounded its purpose. Wollard - and are intended to cut down on litigation over insurance claims. So, too, for that matter, are appraisal clauses. The Legislature, this Court, and the insurers themselves are trying to keep property cases out of the courts. Within the meaning and intent of Wollard, a showing that an insured had an available appraisal clause and a claim paid in full through appraisal should result in the conclusion that as a matter of law there is no Wollard entitlement to fees. In such cases, the insured was not forced to 8
12 sue and the insurer did not confess judgment. The Second District has instead created a whole new series of cases that will present court labor-intensive fact issues on entitlement to fees. Under the Second District s decision, insureds attorneys who file lawsuits despite the availability of appraisal are allowed to argue that they were forced to sue to obtain policy benefits even though the insureds claims were paid in full through appraisal. And, the Second District holds, a forced to sue contention creates a fact issue for the trial court (whether for evidentiary hearing or jury trial is not stated), when the Wollard rule is designed to further the statute s intent to discourage litigation. The availability of attorney s fees is the only motivating factor behind the filing of lawsuits for insureds who have appraisal clauses and are shown to have had their claims resolved in full through appraisal. And, it is motivating only to attorneys with no corresponding benefits for their clients, the insureds. The Second District s misapplication of the Wollard rule has given insureds counsel renewed motivation to file lawsuits on insureds claims that can be - and are - resolved through appraisal. Petitioner thus respectfully submits that the Court should accept this case for review. In insurance property disputes, insureds with appraisal clauses have nothing to gain from the unnecessary lawsuits filed on their behalf for the sole purpose of allowing their attorneys to create a basis for getting attorney s fees. The 9
13 insureds just need their claims paid as soon as possible and under circumstances where they can keep all or most of the proceeds for repairing their property damage. A contractual appraisal as a matter of law gives an insured an alternative to litigation, and creates no Wollard basis for seeking fees if the contract benefits are paid in full through appraisal. The Second District s holding to the contrary should be addressed by the Court CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing facts and authorities, Petitioner respectfully prays that the Court accept the case for discretionary review. Respectfully submitted, BUTLER, PAPPAS, WEIHMULLER KATZ, CRAIG, LLP 777 South Harbour Island Boulevard Suite 500 Tampa, Florida Telephone (813) and- RUSSO APPELLATE FIRM, P.A Southwest 76th Street Miami, Florida Telephone (305) Counsel for Petitioner By: ELIZABETH K. RUSSO Florida Bar No
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the Petitioner s Brief on Jurisdiction was sent by U.S. mail this 18th day of February, 2011 to: David J. Pettinato, Esquire, Merlin Law Group, P.A., 777 South Harbour Island Boulevard, Suite 950, Tampa, Florida 33602; and Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., Esquire, Buell & Elligett, P.A., 3003 West Azeele Street, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FONT STANDARD Undersigned counsel hereby respectfully certifies that the foregoing Brief on Jurisdiction complies with Fla. R. App. P and has been typed in Times New Roman, 14 Point. 11
In the Supreme Court of Florida
In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO.: SC09-401 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CHAD GOFF and CAROL GOFF, Respondents. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC RESPONDENTS BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: SC09-401 CHAD GOFF and CAROL GOFF, Respondents, / RESPONDENTS BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2007 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D06-3147 JESSICA LORENZO F/K/A JESSICA DIBBLE, ET AL.,
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO. BASIK EXPORTS & IMPORTS, INC., Petitioner, v. PREFERRED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC08- Lower Tribunal No. 3D BEATRICE PERAZA, Appellant, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08- Lower Tribunal No. 3D07-477 BEATRICE PERAZA, Appellant, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. On Review of a Decision of the Third District
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT OMEGA INSURANCE COMPANY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, v.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT OMEGA INSURANCE COMPANY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, v.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D BRASS & SINGER, D.C., P.A., A/A/O MILDRED SOLAGES, Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-283 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D05-951 BRASS & SINGER, D.C., P.A., A/A/O MILDRED SOLAGES, Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A Florida corporation,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, S.C. Case No.: SC DCA Case No.: 5D v. L.T. Case No.
Filing # 12738024 Electronically Filed 04/21/2014 04:09:09 PM RECEIVED, 4/21/2014 16:13:38, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, L.T. Nos.: 3D PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MIGUEL A. FONSECA, v. Petitioner, Case No.: SC09-732 L.T. Nos.: 3D08-1465 06-18955 06-10636 MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, INC., a/a/o ERLA TELUSNOR,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-726 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D09-3370 COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, INC., a/a/o ERLA TELUSNOR, Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A Florida
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D v. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC04-1977 L.T. CASE NO.: 2D03-2188 v. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D03-3182 THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2011
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2011 Opinion filed December 07, 2011. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-334 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE : COMPANY, : : Petitioner, : CASE NO.: SC : v. : : HOWARD J. BEVILLE, JR., et al., : : Respondent. : : : ON DISCRETIONARY
More informationBRIEF OF THE ACADEMY OF FLORIDA TRIAL LAWYERS, AMICUS CURIAE, SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS' POSITION
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a reciprocal interinsurance exchange, Petitioner, vs. DALE E. JENNINGS, JR., and TAMMY M. JENNINGS, Respondents. CASE NO. 92,776 ON CERTIFIED
More informationCASE NO. 1D Roy W. Jordan, Jr., of Roy W. Jordan, Jr., P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SUSAN GENA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-1783
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRUCE BERNSTEIN, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC05-1586 HARVEY GOLDMAN, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On Petition To Invoke Discretionary Review Of A Decision
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Florida
In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO.: SC10-116 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. GILDA MENENDEZ, FABIOLA G. LLANES, FABIOLA P. LLANES and ROGER LLANES, Respondents. DISCRETIONARY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, for itself and on behalf of WILLIE BRADHAM, LILLIE BRADHAM and CEDRICK FRASIER, CASE NO: SC03-220 Petitioners, vs. CYNTHIA NICHOLS
More informationCASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 1D JAMON A. JOHNSON and CHAKA JOHNSON, Petitioners, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Electronically Filed 09/09/2013 11:18:02 AM ET RECEIVED, 9/9/2013 11:18:39, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court 122373 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC13-1427 L.T. CASE NO. 1D12-0891 JAMON
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-299 SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellees. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF APPELLEES
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA PETITIONERS AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA RIVIERA ALMERIA RIVERIA BILTMORE, LLC, and RIVIERA SEVILLA, LLC, CASE NO.: SC 11-503 DCA CASE NO: 3D10-1197 L.T. Case No.: 08-2763 CA 40 v. Petitioners,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. 1D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1D07-6027 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, AS RECEIVER FOR AMERICAN SUPERIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, INSOLVENT, vs. Petitioner, IMAGINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-726 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D09-3370 COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, INC. (a/a/o Erla Telusnor), vs. Petitioner, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 4D
Filing # 24507206 E-Filed 03/05/2015 09:53:26 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, CASE NO. SC15-288 DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 4D13-0185 RECEIVED,
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CHRISTIAN HERRERA and SHARON HERRERA, Appellants, v. Case No.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
HERBERT KINDL, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. v. 5 th DCA CASE NO. 5D10-1722 UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Respondent. / PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF A DECISION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-1. MARK FREEMAN and RAPHAEL RODRIGUEZ. Petitioners, vs. BLOSSOM COHEN and ABRAHAM COHEN, Respondents
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-1 MARK FREEMAN and RAPHAEL RODRIGUEZ Petitioners, vs. BLOSSOM COHEN and ABRAHAM COHEN, Respondents RESPONDENTS ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ALVIN N. WEINSTEIN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 94,135 (CI 98-CI 1137)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 94,135 (CI 98-CI 1137) STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. VALIDATION OF NOT EXCEEDING $35,000,000 OSCEOLA COUNTY, OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, a FLORIDA TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC d DCA CASE NO. 3D05-951
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-283 3d DCA CASE NO. 3D05-951 BRASS & SINGER, P.A., (a/o/a Mildred Solages) vs. Petitioner, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. / PETITIONER=S
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT PHILLIP LANDERS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014 ROBERTO SOLANO and MARLENE SOLANO, Appellants, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 4D12-1198 [May 14,
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014 JOSEPH CAMMARATA and JUDY CAMMARATA, Appellants, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 4D13-185 [September
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC Fifth DCA Case No. 5D10-19, Lake County
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC11-1282 Fifth DCA Case No. 5D10-19, Lake County Upon Petition for Discretionary Review Of A Decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D06-458
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D06-458 CUSTER MEDICAL CENTER, (a/a/o Maximo Masis), vs. Petitioner, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. / PETITIONER=S REPLY BRIEF On
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC DCA Case No. 2D WILMA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. Case No. SC04-2003 DCA Case No. 2D03-286 WILMA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA ASSOCIATED UNIFORM RENTAL & LINEN SUPPLY, INC., Petitioner, Case No. SC09-134 3DCA Case No.: 3D05-2130 v. RKR MOTORS, INC., Respondent. On Discretionary Review From
More informationJURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
Electronically Filed 07/17/2013 02:38:44 PM ET RECEIVED, 7/17/2013 14:43:35, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC13-1244 BENJAMIN and BETH ERGAS, FOURTH DISTRICT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, Case No.: SC LT Case No.: 1D PETITIONER'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA GREGG L. BLANN, Vs. Petitioner, Case No.: SC08-197 LT Case No.: 1D07-100 ANNETTE BLANN, Respondent, / PETITIONER'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION William S. Graessle
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D CORRECTED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2012 ANN LOUISE HIGGINS and ANTHONY P. HIGGINS, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D10-3747 CORRECTED WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 13, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1047 Lower Tribunal No. 08-3100 Florida Insurance
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HERBERT KINDL, PETITIONER, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT. CASE NO.: SC11-146
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HERBERT KINDL, PETITIONER, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT. CASE NO.: SC11-146 L.T. NO.: 5D10-1722; 09-CA-5209-A5-L ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No.: SC ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENTS BARBARA REIS AND JOSEPH REIS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Case No.: SC06-962 BARBARA REIS and JOSEPH REIS, Respondents. / ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation doing
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT PHILLIP LANDERS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011 Opinion filed May 18, 2011. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D10-1087 Lower Tribunal No. 09-44858
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT HILDA GIRA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D11-6465 ) NORMA
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011 Opinion filed February 9, 2011. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D10-2014 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationAppellant, Lower Court Case No.: CC O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO- MOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: CVA1-06 - 19 vs. CARRIE CLARK, Appellant, Lower Court Case
More informationInsurance Bad Faith MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT. A commentary article reprinted from the November 24, 2010 issue of Mealey s Litigation Report:
MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT Insurance Bad Faith Pitfalls For The Unwary: The Use Of Releases To Preserve Or Extinguish Any Potential Bad-Faith Claims Between The Primary And Excess Insurance Carriers by
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO: SC v. THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D Lower Tribunal No.:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA RICHARD GRAY, Plaintiff/Petitioner, CASE NO: SC04-1579 v. THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D03-1587 Lower Tribunal No.: 98-27005 DANIEL CASES, Defendant/Respondent. PETITIONER
More informationRESPONDENT CDC BUILDERS, INC. S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS RIVIERA BILTMORE, LLC AND RIVIERA SEVILLA LLC S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
2070625 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RIVIERA ALMERIA, LLC, RIVIERA BILTMORE, LLC, RIVIERA SEVILLA, LLC, Petitioner(s) CASE NO.: SC11-503 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NOS: 3D10-1197, 08-2763CA10 vs. CDC BUILDERS,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. CARMEN MARIA CONTRERAS, ETC., Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-1259 U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. CARMEN MARIA CONTRERAS, ETC., Respondent. Express & Direct Conflict Jurisdiction Fourth District Court of Appeal
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida POLSTON, J. No. SC10-2097 DIANE PETTY, et al., Petitioners, vs. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Respondent. [January 19, 2012] We review the decision of the Second District
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Opinion filed August 1, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00263-CV RON POUNDS, Appellant V. LIBERTY LLOYDS OF TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 215th District
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC d DCA CASE NO. 3D05-951
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-283 3d DCA CASE NO. 3D05-951 BRASS & SINGER, P.A., (a/o/a Mildred Solages) vs. Petitioner, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. / PETITIONER=S
More informationAppellant/Cross-Appellee, CASE NO. 1D
AMERICAN ASSURANCE CORP., CAPITAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ELLIS TURNAGE APPELLANT V. NO CA COA ELLIS CHRISTOPHER BROOKS, ET. AL.
E-Filed Document Sep 6 2016 16:10:23 2014-CA-00966-COA Pages: 16 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ELLIS TURNAGE APPELLANT V. NO. 2014-CA-00966-COA ELLIS CHRISTOPHER BROOKS, ET. AL. APPELLEES
More informationRespondents. / ANSWER BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF RESPONDENT, THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
JAMES D. STERLING and CAROLYN STERLING, as Parents and Natural Guardians of JAMES D. STERLING, JR., a minor, and JAMES D. STERLING and CAROLYN STERLING, Individually, vs. Petitioners, STATE OF FLORIDA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC th DCA Case No. 5D
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA D.M.T., Appellant, v. Case No. SC12-261 5 th DCA Case No. 5D09-3559 T.M.H., Appellee. / APPELLEE S VERIFIED OBJECTION TO APPELLANT S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE INITIAL
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida ANSTEAD, J. No. SC05-936 KATHLEEN MILLER, et vir, Appellants, vs. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. [May 18, 2006] We have for review a question of Florida law certified
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010 Opinion filed November 24, 2010. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D10-807 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: ARNALDO VELEZ, an individual, TAYLOR, BRION, BUKER & GREENE, a general partnership, vs. Petitioners, BIRD LAKES DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Panamanian corporation, Respondent.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Lower Tribunal No.: 2D RESPONDENTS AMENDED RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON, P.A. a Florida professional service corporation, and JOSEPH RUGG, an individual, Petitioners, CASE NO. SC06-2312 v. Lower Tribunal No.: 2D05-4688
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-15-293 UNIFIRST CORPORATION APPELLANT V. LUDWIG PROPERTIES, INC. D/B/A 71 EXPRESS TRAVEL PLAZA APPELLEE Opinion Delivered December 2, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 11, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-389 Lower Tribunal No. 13-741-P Mario Gamero,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Appellant Case No.: Appeal No: INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RUBEN FLORES Vs. Appellant Case No.: 00-2281 Appeal No: 98-04115 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY Appellee / INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS On Petition to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011 Opinion filed May 25, 2011. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-180 Lower Tribunal No. 10-38278
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC04-1690 4 TH DCA CASE NUMBER: 4D03-2921 HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA CORPORATION, vs. Defendants/Petitioners, ANTHONY J. FERAYORNI, as Personal
More informationAMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC-12-905 L.T. No. 3D-11-0581 GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC., as assignee of Maria Tirado, Respondent. AMICUS BRIEF
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA BARRY L. BERGES, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC01-2846 vs. On Appeal from: District Court of Appeal, INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY Second District formerly known as
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT. Docket No Terry Ann Bartlett
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT Docket No. 2014-0285 Terry Ann Bartlett v. The Commerce Insurance Company, Progressive Northern Insurance Company and Foremost Insurance Company APPEAL FROM FINAL
More informationOF FLORIDA. ** Appellant, ** vs. CASE NO. 3D ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO TRIPP CONSTRUCTION, INC., ** Appellee. **
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2002 Appellant,
More informationMlekush v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: Defining the Standard for the Insurance Exception to the American Rule
Montana Law Review Online Volume 78 Article 10 7-20-2017 Mlekush v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: Defining the Standard for the Insurance Exception to the American Rule Molly Ricketts Alexander Blewett III
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-856
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-856 RICHARD SNELL, Vs. Appellant/Petitioner ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO., et al. Appellee/Respondent. / PETITIONER S THIRD AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION BOIES, SCHILLER
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JOHN D. DUDLEY, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC 07-1747 vs. DCA CASE NO.: 5D06-3821 ELLEN F. SCHMIDT, Respondent. / PETITIONER S AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF Richard J. D
More informationCASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox, Special Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA VERIZON BUSINESS PURCHASING, LLC, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2011
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2011 CENTRAL SQUARE TARRAGON LLC, a Florida limited liability company, for itself and as assignee of AGU Entertainment Corporation,
More informationSUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC vs. Lwr Tribunal: 1D
SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA JACQUELINE DUPREY, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC07-396 vs. Lwr Tribunal: 1D05-3340 LA PETITE ACADEMY and GALLAGHER BASSETT, Respondent. / PETITIONER S INITIAL
More informationLower Case No CC O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, Case No. 2016-CV-000038-A-O Lower Case No. 2015-CC-009396-O v. CENTRAL FLORIDA
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 14, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1030 Lower Tribunal No. 12-29665 Luis Matamoros,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No.: SC E. MARIE BOTHE, Petitioner, -vs- PAMELA JEAN HANSEN. Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC09-901 E. MARIE BOTHE, Petitioner, -vs- PAMELA JEAN HANSEN Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND DISTRICT
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D12-428
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Appellant,
More informationFINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT. the trial court s Final Judgment entered July 16, 2014, in favor of Appellee, Emergency
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000054-A-O Lower Case No.: 2011-SC-008737-O Appellant, v.
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE ) CORPORATION, ) ) Appellant, ) )
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JANUARY TERM, vs. ** CASE NO. 3D
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, 2004 SPLASH ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ** Appellant,
More informationCASE NO. 1D William R. Lewis and Carol M. Rooney of Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP, Tampa, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC05-1459 DR. ROBERT D. SIMON, M.D., P.A. a/a/o ERIC HON, Petitioner, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. On Review From The District Court of
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009 Opinion filed July 15, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D08-2376 Lower Tribunal No. 07-5548
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2013
GROSS, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2013 GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. JAMES M. HARVEY, Respondent. No. 4D12-1525 [January 23, 2013]
More informationReese J. Henderson, Jr., Esq., B.C.S
Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.: Balancing the Interests Surrounding Potential Insurance Coverage for Chapter 558 Notices of Claim February 23, 2018 Reese J. Henderson, Jr.,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Electronically Filed 07/24/2013 10:41:59 AM ET RECEIVED, 7/24/2013 11:38:37, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court JAMON A. JOHNSON and CHAKA JOHNSON, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Petitioners, v. L.
More informationBEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE
Filing # 29552579 E-Filed 07/13/2015 11:29:39 AM BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE SC13-1333 LAURA M. WATSON, NO. 12-613 / RECEIVED, 07/13/2015
More informationv. CASE NO.: CVA Lower Court Case No.: 2003-SC-598-O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGIONAL MRI OF ORLANDO, INC., as assignee of Lorraine Gerena, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-38 Lower Court Case
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D00-2993 PASHA YENKE, Appellee. / Opinion filed
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, CASE NO. SC01-1622 Third District CASE NO. 3D00-2464 vs. JULIAN MARTINEZ, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.
More informationIn this PIP case, State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (State Farm), the Defendant below,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. WORLD HEALTH WELLNESS, INC. a/a/o Glenda Pinero, Appellee.
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A K & R Landholdings, LLC, d/b/a High Banks Resort, Appellant, vs. Auto-Owners Insurance, Respondent.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A16-0660 K & R Landholdings, LLC, d/b/a High Banks Resort, Appellant, vs. Auto-Owners Insurance, Respondent. Filed February 12, 2018 Reversed and remanded Schellhas,
More information