IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D v. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation,
|
|
- Emil Elliott
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC L.T. CASE NO.: 2D v. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, Respondent, ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF MICHAEL S. RYWANT, ESQ. FLORIDA BAR # KERRY C. MCGUINN, JR., ESQ. FLORIDA BAR # RYWANT, ALVAREZ, JONES RUSSO & GUYTON, P.A. 109 N. Brush St., Ste. 500 Post Office Box 3283 Tampa, Florida (813) Attorney for Petitioner, Owners Insurance Company
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED...1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE...1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...3 ARGUMENT...4 The Decision Below has the Effect of Providing a Windfall to Hartford by Awarding it Prejudgment Interest for a Period of Time Before it Actually Made Payment on the Claim...4 The Decision Below has the Effect of Awarding Prejudgment Interest to Hartford as a Penalty for the Alleged Wrongful Act of Disputing a Claim Found to be Just and Owing...6 CONCLUSION & RELEIF REQUESTED...9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...10 CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE...10 ii
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing, 474 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1985)... 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Biscayne Supermarket, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 485 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)...2 Broward County v. Finlayson, 555 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 1990)...3, 4 Flack v. Graham, 461 So.2d 82 (Fla. 1984)...9 State of Florida v. Family Bank of Hallandale, 623 So.2d 474 (Fla. 1993)...3, 9 Taylor v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 489 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)...2 Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Smith, 690 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1997)... 3, 5, 9 iii
4 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether the decision below expressly and directly conflicts with Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing, 474 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1985), and its progeny, by providing a windfall to HARTFORD in awarding it prejudgment interest for a period of time before HARTFORD actually made payment to its insured; and (2) Whether the decision below expressly and directly conflicts with Argonaut, supra, because awarding prejudgment interest for the time before payment was made amounted to a penalty against OWNERS for the alleged wrongful act of disputing a claim. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE The Plaintiff, HARTFORD, filed an Amended Complaint for Equitable Subrogation against Defendant, OWNERS. The case arises out of money HARTFORD paid to its insured contractor (Clark) under a Builder s Risk Policy. Payments were made for property damage that occurred in 1997 from a rainstorm at the construction site of the new Federal Courthouse in Tampa. OWNERS issued a liability policy to a subcontractor (BCI) that was allegedly at fault. The trial court found that Clark submitted an insurance claim to OWNERS, as an additional insured, that was denied. Clark also submitted the claim to HARTFORD which paid the claim under its policy. After making such payment to Clark, HARTFORD sought to recover this money in equitable subrogation directly from OWNERS. The trial court entered a Partial Summary Judgment on liability in favor of HARTFORD and against OWNERS. The only issue raised by OWNERS in the notice to invoke discretionary review by this Court relates to that portion of the 1
5 opinion below that awarded HARTFORD prejudgment interest starting from the date that HARTFORD contended the proceeds would have been due and payable to its insured (Clark) under the OWNERS liability insurance policy if OWNERS had not denied the claim. The trial Court ruled that HARTFORD was only entitled to be paid prejudgment interest starting from the date it actually made payment to Clark, which was well after Clark submitted the claim to OWNERS. 1 The Second District Court of Appeal opinion (attached at Appendix Tab 1) reversed the trial court and awarded HARTFORD prejudgment interest for a period of time before it made payment to Clark and held in part as follows: The trial court determined that prejudgment interest was due from the date of Hartford's payment to Clark and calculated the prejudgment interest on that basis. In the circumstances present here where Hartford's claim against Owners was based on Clark's status as an additional insured under the Owners policy the prejudgment interest awarded by the trial court was inadequate. In Taylor v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 489 So. 2d 207, 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), we held that where a claim for property damage is made by an insured on an insurance policy "prejudgment interest [is due] from the date that the proceeds would have been due under the policy." See also Biscayne Supermarket, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 485 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The principle set forth in Taylor applies to the instant case. We therefore reverse the order awarding prejudgment interest with instructions that the trial court recalculate the prejudgment interest based on the date the proceeds for the loss would have been due under the Owners policy. 1 The underlying loss suffered by Clark when the water actually entered the federal courthouse occurred on April 26, 1997, and the trial court found that thereafter Clark submitted the claim to OWNERS and it was denied. However, it was not until August 2, 1999 that HARTFORD actually paid Clark for the loss under its policy with HARTFORD. 2
6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This Court has jurisdiction to review the decision below under the jurisdictional grant of Fla.Const.Art. V, Section 3(b)(3), because this decision expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions of the other district courts of appeal and the Supreme Court on the same points of law for the following reasons: (1) The decision below has the effect of providing a windfall to HARTFORD by awarding it prejudgment interest for a period of time before it actually made payment to its insured, which expressly and directly conflicts with Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing, 474 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1985), and its progeny; and (2) The decision below conflicts with Argonaut, supra, because awarding prejudgment interest to HARTFORD (starting from the date the loss was allegedly suffered by Clark when it presented the claim to OWNERS, as opposed to the date HARTFORD actually suffered its own loss by paying the money to Clark) amounted to a penalty against OWNERS for the alleged wrongful act of disputing a claim found to be just and owing by OWNERS. By mechanically quoting the holding of Taylor with respect to the correctness of awarding prejudgment interest from the date of the loss, but without correctly considering how the date of the loss should be determined, the court below achieved a result that directly and expressly conflicts with Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing, 474 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla. 1985), State of Florida v. Family Bank of Hallandale, 623 So.2d 474 (Fla. 1993), Broward County v. Finlayson, 555 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 1990), and Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Smith, 690 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1997) with respect to equitable considerations 3
7 underlying the purpose and intent of prejudgment interest. ARGUMENT I. THE DECISION BELOW HAS THE EFFECT OF PROVIDING A WINDFALL TO HARTFORD BY AWARDING IT PREJUDGMENT INTEREST FOR A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE IT ACTUALLY MADE PAYMENT ON THE CLAIM This Court should accept jurisdiction to resolve conflict created by the Second District s decision to award HARTFORD prejudgment interest well before HARTFORD ever made payment to Clark. In particular, the decision of the lower court in this case conflicts with the holding of Argonaut, supra, since that case held that Florida has adopted the position that prejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages Id at 214. The lower court s ruling in effect provides a windfall to HARTFORD, since it did not sustain the loss of use of the money until it actually made payment to Clark, which occurred after the period of time for which it was awarded prejudgment interest. The decision also conflicts with Broward County v. Finlayson, 555 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 1990), a case involving failure to pay overtime wages. The issue on appeal was whether the Defendant should have to pay prejudgment interest starting from when the wages accrued or when the claim was first made. Id at Relying on Argonaut, and other cases, this Court held that the law on prejudgment interest is not absolute and may depend on equitable considerations. Id. This court also held that it would be inequitable to allow the recovery of prejudgment interest 4
8 prior to the time of the first claim for overtime pay. Id at Similarly, the decision of the lower court in this case conflicts with the decisions of other District Courts of Appeal related to the interpretation of Argonaut and the principles that guide an award of prejudgment interest under same. In Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Smith, 690 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1997), the Plaintiff brought claims under the UCC, breach of warranty, and violation of the Florida Unfair Trade Practices Act in connection with the purchase of an automobile. The trial court awarded prejudgment interest starting from the date of purchase of the automobile not only on the purchase price of the vehicle, but also on the amounts awarded by the jury in excess of the purchase price. While the facts of Volskwagen involved an allegation of waiver of a portion of the prejudgment interest, in reversing the trial court, the First District Court of Appeal generally interpreted Argonaut as follows: We must decide on these facts whether the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest during the time between Smith s initial election to proceed only against Griffin and Smith s subsequent election to proceed only against Volkswagen. There is not precise answer in the Florida case law. We conclude, however, that the general principles in Argonaut... require reversal of the judgment. * * * The Argonaut decision did not establish an inflexible rule that requires trial judges to assess prejudgment interest in every case regardless of the circumstances. Depending on the equities of a given case, an award of prejudgment interest may be a windfall to the plaintiff and an unfair burden on the defendant. * * * Application of the prejudgment interest rule in its literal form would nether promote fairness in administration nor prevent an 5
9 injustice under the circumstances (emphasis added) In the case herein, HARTFORD was a subrogating insurer. While it stands in the shoes of the insured (Clark), it has no more or less rights than its insured with respect to the payment it made to the insured. If Clark had made a claim to HARTFORD and been paid prejudgment interest for the period of time between when Clark submitted the claim to OWNERS and when HARTFORD actually paid the claim to Clark, then HARTFORD would be entitled to recover this amount as part of the damages from OWNERS. However, since HARTFORD did not pay money to Clark for this prejudgment interest, it amounts to a windfall for HARTFORD to now be entitled to recover this amount from OWNERS. By the decision below, HARTFORD was awarded prejudgment interest not from the date it contends its own claim arose, but rather from the date Clark sustained a loss (i.e. when Clark submitted the claim to OWNERS). II. THE DECISION BELOW HAS THE EFFECT OF AWARDING PREJUDGMENT INTEREST TO HARTFORD AS A PENALTY FOR THE ALLEGED WRONGFUL ACT OF DISPUTING A CLAIM FOUND TO BE JUST AND OWING This Court should also accept jurisdiction to resolve conflict created by the Second District s decision to award HARTFORD prejudgment interest starting from the date of the loss sustained by Clark, since the decision in effect awards prejudgment interest for a period of time as a penalty against OWNERS. In particular, in Argonaut, supra, this Court quoted legal principles over a century old 6
10 in regard to the purpose of awarding prejudgment interest: On general principles, once admit that interest is the natural fruit of money, it would seem that, whatever a verdict liquidates a claim and fixes it as of a prior date, interest should follow from that date Id at 214. The Argonaut Court further discussed the purpose behind Florida s pre-judgment interest rule in more modern terms as follows: Thus... Florida has adopted the position that prejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages. While doing so, the Court recognized and rejected an alternative but traditional rationale -that prejudgment interest was to be awarded as a penalty for defendant s wrongful act of disputing a claim found to be just and owing. This view is still the rule of some jurisdictions. Id. at The Trial Court held that interest would only start to accrue from the date HARTFORD paid the money to Clark, not the date Clark made the claim to OWNERS. The Second District Court of appeal reversed and incorrectly relied upon cases interpreting Argonaut when it held that HARTFORD was entitled to prejudgment interest from a date back in time when Clark allegedly made the claim to OWNERS. In this case, OWNERS recognizes that, under the aforementioned cases, if HARTFORD had paid Clark a separate sum for prejudgment interest starting from the date Clark made the claim to OWNERS, and if HARTFORD sought to recover that separate sum from OWNERS, then HARTFORD as the victorious subrogating insurer would be entitled to recover that prejudgment interest from OWNERS. 7
11 Since HARTFORD did not suffer that loss itself by paying that money to Clark, the decision below expressly and directly conflicts with Argonaut and creates a windfall for the benefit of HARTFORD 2 ; in effect, it creates an incentive for an insurer to pay claims at a later date, accrue interest on the money they hold during this time, and then receive a windfall of prejudgment interest even though the insurer did not forgo a loss of the money until it is paid at a later date. It is respectfully submitted that when determining whether there is express and direct conflict as alleged herein, this Court should not consider the holding of Argonaut in a vacuum. In fact, the general rule annunciated in Argonaut for the awarding of prejudgment interest arises in the context of a situation where an insurer fails to pay the insured for a loss, and the insured is then rewarded with prejudgment interest for the time value of the lost money back to the date of the insured s casualty loss. It is well settled that an award of prejudgment interest is not simply mechanical or absolute in nature, and in determining the scope of prejudgment interest awardable, the court should consider equity and other general 2 However, even if such payment had been made for prejudgment interest by HARTFORD to Clark, than that amount would simply be subsumed within the total sum for which HARTFORD sought to recover in subrogation from OWNERS in the underlying action. To allow HARTFORD to seek subrogation for all the moneys it paid to Clark, and then receive an additional award for prejudgment interest prior to the date it made payment for whatever elements of damage it paid to Clark, expressly and directly conflicts with Argonaut. 8
12 considerations. In State of Florida v. Family Bank of Hallandale, 623 So.2d 474 (Fla. 1993), this Court again addressed the considerations that must guide courts when awarding prejudgment interest: However, the law is not absolute and a judicial determination regarding interest may depend on equitable considerations and whether the nature of the claim warrants a prejudgment interest award...in Flack [v. Graham, 461 So.2d 82 (Fla. 1984)], this Court refused to permit the recovery of prejudgment interest against the state, holding: Interest is not recoverable according to a rigid theory of compensation for money withheld, but is given in response to considerations of fairness. It is denied when its exaction would be inequitable. Id at 479. While Hallandale dealt with sovereign immunity issues, the holding is not so qualified with respect to the considerations that must be followed when applying the principles set forth in Argonaut with respect to prejudgment interest. By awarding HARTFORD prejudgment interest for a period of time before it paid the money to Clark, the lower court s decision expressly and directly conflicts with the Hallandale with respect to the equitable considerations that must be followed in making such an award. CONCLUSION & RELIEF REQUESTED The decision of the Second District Court of Appeal directly and expressly conflicts with Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing, 474 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla. 1985), State of Florida v. Family Bank of Hallandale, 623 So.2d 474 (Fla. 1993), Broward County v. Finlayson, 555 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 1990), and Volkswagen of America, 9
13 Inc. v. Smith, 690 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1997), with respect to the prejudgment interest start date on HARTFORD S claim. Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that this Honorable Court should accept discretionary jurisdiction pursuant to authority granted in Fla.Const.Art. V, Section 3(b)(3), and consider the merits. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to: Scott S. Katz, Esquire & Anthony Russo, Esquire, 6200 Courtney Campbell Causeway, Suite 1100, Tampa, Florida 33607, on this day of October, MICHAEL S. RYWANT, ESQ. FLORIDA BAR # KERRY C. MCGUINN, JR., ESQ. FLORIDA BAR # RYWANT, ALVAREZ, JONES RUSSO & GUYTON, P.A. 109 N. Brush St., Ste. 500 Post Office Box 3283 Tampa, Florida (813) Attorney for Petitioner, Owners Insurance Company CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that Times New Roman, 14 point font, was used in this Discretionary Brief. KERRY C. MCGUINN, JR., ESQ. FLORIDA BAR #
In the Supreme Court of Florida
In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO.: SC11-258 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LLOYD BEVERLY and EDITH BEVERLY, Respondents. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT
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 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 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. 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 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 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
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 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 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-2231 RENEE HELD, Petitioner, L. T. CASE NO. 4D04-1432 and KENNETH HELD Respondent. AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL ANSWER BRIEF OF RESPONDENT TERRENCE
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. v. CASE NO. SC RESPONDENT S RESPONSE BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
KENNETH R. PFRENGLE, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA v. CASE NO. SC08-717 PAULA D. PFRENGLE, n/k/a PAULA D. KAY, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S RESPONSE BRIEF ON JURISDICTION JOAN LoBIANCO WALKER,
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 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 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 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 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 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. DCA Case No. 2D L.T. Case No CA
William O. Murtagh, M.D., Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. DCA Case No. 2D-10-246 L.T. Case No. 09-3769-CA Lynn Hurley, Defendant/Appellee. / PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER/APPELLANT,
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC L.T. No. 3D A.M. BEST ROOFING, INC., Petitioner, RICHARD KAYFETZ, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC03-131 L.T. No. 3D00-3278 A.M. BEST ROOFING, INC., Petitioner, v. RICHARD KAYFETZ, Respondent. ON NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DECISION
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 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 informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BLACKBOX, INC., Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D00-0000 JAMES L. DOE and MARCIA E. DOE, et al., Appellees. / ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH
More informationBILLY JOE L. MCFARLAND, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No: Del Prado, Suite A Cape Coral, Florida (239) Attorney for Petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASED NO. SC11-7 SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 2D09-3774 LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. 07-CA-011255 ADVANTAGE BUILDERS
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 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, : SUPREME COURT NO.: SC06-2428 : Petitioner, : FLA. 2d DCA v. : CASE NO.: 2D05-1780 : MELVIN STACY JENKINS, : HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CIR. CT. : CASE NO.:
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT LIBERTY AMERICAN INSURANCE, COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2D04-2637
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 6:13-cv-01591-GAP-GJK Document 92 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID 3137 CATHERINE S. CADLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION v. Case No: 6:13-cv-1591-Orl-31GJK
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT SHERRY CLEMENS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN CLEMENS, deceased, Appellant, v. PETER NAMNUM, M.D., individually, PETER
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 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 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 informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JOSEPH VIERA, ALICIA VIERA, PAIGE VIERA, JOEY VIERA, LYNN DEMCHAK VIERA and JOSEPH VIERA AND LYNN DEMCHAK on behalf of CHRISTOPHER DEMCHAK,
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 informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JAMES T. GELSOMINO, Appellant, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and BROWN & BROWN, INC., Appellees. No. 4D14-4767 [November 9, 2016] Appeal
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 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 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 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-263 Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728 MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, JERALD MCLAUGHLIN, individually, and CARL E. ALBREKTSEN, individually, vs.
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 information2018 CO 42. No. 15SC934, Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barriga Unreasonable Delay and Denial of Insurance Benefits Damages.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
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 informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Orlando Orthopaedic Center a/a/o Jennifer Chapman, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2015-CV-64-A-O Lower Court Case No.: 2014-SC-2566-O
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. vs. CASE NO. SC96659 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE/ CROSS APPELLANT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT BEELER P0WER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. CASE NO. SC96659 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee/ Cross-Appellant. / REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE/ CROSS APPELLANT INTERLOCUTORY
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 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 informationAGCS Mar. Ins. Co. v LP Ciminelli, Inc NY Slip Op 31533(U) August 11, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /15 Judge:
AGCS Mar. Ins. Co. v LP Ciminelli, Inc. 2016 NY Slip Op 31533(U) August 11, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 652086/15 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Pierson v. Wheeland, 2007-Ohio-2474.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) ROBERT G. PIERSON, ADM., et al. C. A. No. 23442 Appellees v. RICHARD
More informationIN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC Petitioner, BRENDA W. NIX,
----------------------------------------------- -------- IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC06-1326 ----------------------------------------------- -------- RICHARD A. NIX, Petitioner, v. BRENDA
More informationSTAND-UP MRI OF ORLANDO, CASE NO.: CVA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STAND-UP MRI OF ORLANDO, CASE NO.: CVA1 06-58 a/a/o Eusebio Isaac, LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 2005-SC-4899-O Appellant,
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013
MAY, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013 PALM BEACH POLO HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation,
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC LOWER TRIBUNAL NUMBER 3D Circuit Court Case No
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-1922 LOWER TRIBUNAL NUMBER 3D07-299 Circuit Court Case No. 00-19074 AVIOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and GEM CITY AVIATION, INC. d/b/a AVTECH EXECUTIVE FLIGHT CENTER,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: SC L.T. Case No.: 3D DOLL ENTERPRISES, INC, Petitioner, GUILLERMO SOSTCHIN, Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC03-1343 L.T. Case No.: 3D01-2490 DOLL ENTERPRISES, INC, Petitioner, v. GUILLERMO SOSTCHIN, Respondent. RESPONDENT S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF PHILIP D. PARRISH, P.A. One
More informationBEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO , JUDGE JOHN RENKE, III /
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 02-466, JUDGE JOHN RENKE, III / SC03-1846 OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR DEPOSITION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
More information2018 PA Super 45. Appeal from the Order entered March 29, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No: CT
2018 PA Super 45 WILLIAM SMITH SR. AND EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN HEMPHILL AND COMMERCIAL SNOW + ICE, LLC APPEAL OF BARRY M. ROTHMAN, ESQUIRE No. 1351
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: DCA CASE NO.: 2D
Electronically Filed 04/18/2013 01:20:31 PM ET RECEIVED, 4/25/2013 15:07:31, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Petitioner, LARRY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC th DCA CASE NO. 4D L.T. CASE NO. CACE (13)
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC03-1597 4th DCA CASE NO. 4D02-368 L.T. CASE NO. CACE 99-12131 (13) ASAL PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation, vs. Petitioner, OFFICE PAVILION SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., a
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RICHARD DUCHARME, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC05-290 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC On Petition for Discretionary Review Of a Decision of The First District Court of Appeal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC04-957 On Petition for Discretionary Review Of a Decision of The First District Court of Appeal RISCORP INSURANCE COMPANY, RISCORP PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
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 THE PLUMBING SERVICE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D06-1586 TRAVELER'S CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, etc., Appellee.
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE Case No.: SC INSURANCE COMPANY, L.T. No.: 5D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE Case No.: SC03-1483 INSURANCE COMPANY, L.T. No.: 5D01-3851 Petitioner, vs. SHANNON NICHOLS, Respondent. / REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER KENNETH
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 10, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2044 Lower Tribunal No. 16-3100 Companion Property
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC04-586
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC04-586 STELLA ALEXANDER, etc., vs. Petitioner, PENSKE LOGISTICS, INC., et al., Respondents. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL
More informationentered an order denying the motion for reconsideration, rehearing and
SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 13-9999 DANNY'S BACKHOE SERVICE, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner, First District Court of Appeals -vs- Case No. 1D12-5142 AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee/Respondent.
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 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 informationOF FLORIDA. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara S. Levenson, Judge.
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, A.D. 2005 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 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 informationSCAP IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
SCAP-16-0000462 Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAP-16-0000462 12-OCT-2017 05:32 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII TAX FOUNDATION OF HAWAI`I, a Hawai`i non-profit corporation, on behalf
More informationAMENDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION
KARIM GHANEM, vs. Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1860 Lower Tribunal No: 4D03-743 AMENDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION [PETITION FOR WRIT
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 information