SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
|
|
- Willis Gibbs
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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: SC Petitioners, vs. CYNTHIA NICHOLS and the, ESTATE OF LILA NICHOLS, Respondents. THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, FOR ITSELF AND ON BEHALF OF WILLIE BRADHAM, LILLIE BRADHAM AND CEDRICK FRASIER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On Review from the First District Court of Appeal Case Nos. 1D , 1D BUTLER PAPPAS WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP KATHY J. MAUS, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: ANTHONY J. RUSSO, ESQ. Florida Bar No Thomasville Road, Suite 102 Tallahassee, Florida Telephone: (850) Attorneys for Petitioners
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT...iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT... 2 ARGUMENT... 4 CONCLUSION... 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE & STYLE i
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Abe v. Ehrling, 768 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)... 3, 6, 7, 9 Bateski v. Ransom, 658 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)... 7 Boyco v. Ilardi, 613 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)... 3, 6, 7, 9 Cheverie v. Geisser, 783 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)... 7 Cruz v. American United Ins. Co., 580 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)... 8, 9 Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 495 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)...3-5, 9 Erhardt v. Duff, 729 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)... 3, 5, 9 Infinity Ins. Co. v. Berges, 806 So. 2d 504(Fla. 2d DCA 2001), rev. granted 826 So. 2d 991(2002) (case no. SC argued Feb. 4, 2003)... 8 Nichols v. Martell, 612 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)... 3, 6, 9 ii
4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont d) Cases Page(s) Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1985)... 8, 9 Statutes Section , Fla. Stat. (2003)... 2 Section , Fla. Stat. (2003)... 4, 6, 9 iii
5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Petitioner is The Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, for itself and on behalf of its insureds, who are defendants in a personal injury lawsuit, Willie and Lillie Bradham and Cedrick Frasier (collectively Hartford ). Respondents are the personal injury plaintiffs, Cynthia Nichols and the estate of Lila Nichols (hereinafter collectively Nichols or Plaintiffs ). iv
6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The following facts are taken from the district court s opinion. This is an action by an insurance company to enforce a settlement agreement. Plaintiffs attorney offered to settle his clients personal injury claims if Hartford would deliver to his office by a time and date certain the insured s policy limits of $10,000. Failing performance, the attorney said he would sue Hartford s insureds. The terms of the release were not made a part of the Plaintiffs demand. Hartford tendered the policy limits timely, and sent a proposed release form along with the check for the Plaintiffs to execute. Plaintiffs do not dispute that their signing a release was an implicit part of the settlement agreement. But the Plaintiffs attorney rejected the proposed release asserting it contained an unacceptable indemnification provision. Hartford responded by submitting a release without the objectionable language which Plaintiffs ignored. Hartford then sued to enforce the settlement. Plaintiffs argued there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no settlement. Hartford argued the language of the release was not an essential element of the agreement. The trial court granted Hartford s motion for summary judgment but the district court reversed, holding that the Plaintiffs objection to the indemnification language in the release demonstrated a lack of mutual assent to an essential element of 1
7 the offer to settle, i.e., a counter offer that the Plaintiffs were not required to accept. Hartford never made the indemnity language a condition of the settlement. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Nichols case establishes a one-strike-and-you re-out standard for liability carriers trying to settle personal injury claims under time demands. The failure of the settlement exposes both the insureds and Hartford to a judgment in excess of the policy limits. The insureds would be directly exposed to the judgment, and Hartford would be exposed because section , Fla. Stat. (2003) and Florida common law provide an avenue for the insured to recover damages for such excess liability if the liability carrier has failed to settle the case within policy limits when it was possible to do so, i.e., a bad-faith claim. The insured defendant subjected to an excess judgment typically assigns his rights to this bad-faith remedy against his liability insurer to the plaintiff following entry of the excess judgment in exchange for a promise that the plaintiff will not collect the judgment against the insured defendant. The plaintiff then attempts collection of the excess judgment against the insurer as the subrogee of the insured. In this way, the policy limits are effectively made unlimited when settlement is first made possible, but then not achieved. Plaintiffs thus have an incentive to first raise the potential to settle, and then to destroy the settlement in order to set up the bad-faith remedy. Nichols facilitates this setup, and contradicts Abe v. 2
8 Ehrling, 768 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Boyco v. Ilardi, 613 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 495 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Erhardt v. Duff, 729 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); and Nichols v. Martell, 612 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(all upholding settlement agreements despite initial disagreement over the form or necessity for the release). Under Nichols, if a release form proposed by the insurer contains anything the plaintiff s attorney deems to be objectionable (and who can contradict his professional opinion as to what is an essential element for his client?) then the plaintiff is free to withdraw his offer and sue the insured tortfeasor and possibly obtain a judgment in excess of policy limits; expose the insured to an excess judgment by effectively obliterating the ability of the liability carrier to settle the case within policy limits; blow the limits of any liability policy to set up an insurer bad-faith claim. Florida has never been a one-strike-and-you re-out state. Under Florida law, the form of the release is not an essential element of a settlement agreement, the execution of the release is a ministerial matter the plaintiff is obligated to perform, and a liability insurer is afforded a reasonable opportunity to negotiate the form of the release. ARGUMENT 3
9 The Nichols case improperly establishes a one-strike-and-you re-out standard and so is contrary to Florida cases which hold, and section , Fla. Stat. (2003) which clearly implies (1) the execution of a release by a personal injury plaintiff is not an essential element to the formation of a settlement agreement; and (2) a liability insurer must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to negotiate the form of the release in the context of a time demand to a liability insurer. First, Nichols conflicts with the following cases, all of which involve settlements of personal injury claims or settlements of time demands by insurers, and all of which hold that the execution and form of the release are not essential elements of the agreement to settle. Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 495 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) is most offended by the Nichols opinion. The issue was whether the trial court erred in enforcing a settlement where the defendant objected to an indemnification clause in a release form proposed by the plaintiff. Did the plaintiff s mere proposal of a release that contained a variation from the parties original understanding terminate the offer and constitute a counter offer which the defendants were free to reject? The district court said no because the parties were free to negotiate the form of the release, and therefore the initial agreement was not disturbed by the subsequent submission of a release with the variation. Because the form was not submitted on a take-it-or-leave- 4
10 it basis, the indemnification language was not a deal-breaker. The two sides initially said the same thing as to the terms of the agreement, and so the settlement was upheld. Under Nichols, however, courts in the First District would be free to declare this same agreement dead; but under Dania, courts in the Fourth District will find them to be enforceable. Erhardt v. Duff, 729 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) is very similar to Nichols in that it too involves a time demand by a plaintiff against the tortfeasor s liability carrier. The insurer responded to the plaintiff s time demand for policy limits with a letter accepting the terms and adding [u]pon receipt of your acceptance, we are prepared to forward our settlement drafts and Releases. The plaintiff ignored the response and sued. The insurer moved to compel settlement. The trial court rejected the plaintiff s argument that the insurer s letter was a counter offer and not an acceptance saying that s not how the real world works. The district court upheld the settlement holding the defendant s letter was sufficient acceptance to form a contract. The subsequent request for a release was not an attempt to impose a new condition to the deal because the execution of the release was implicit as part of the tender and not an additional element of the agreement. Abe v. Ehrling, 768 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(the insurer s letter to the plaintiff s lawyer confirming their agreement to settle the case contained a request for 5
11 a release from the plaintiffs, yet this request did not constitute a rejection of the offer to settle or counter offer.) Boyco v. Ilardi, 613 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), was an appeal by a plaintiff from an order compelling her to execute settlement documents. The Third District affirmed because the execution of the settlement documents was not a condition precedent to the settlement agreement, but rather a mere procedural formality which both parties to the settlement agreement were obligated to perform. Nichols v. Martell, 612 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), was a time demand by a plaintiff for the insured s policy limits. The insurer in Martell, as in this case, accepted the offer by tendering the limits along with a release form. The plaintiff said this submission was a counter offer which destroyed the offer but the Third District held that this action was not... a counter offer in any sense. Finally, section , Fla. Stat. (2003), recognizes that the existence of a mutually agreeable release is not a precondition to the existence of a binding settlement agreement. Only two times (to Petitioners search) has a dispute over language in a release destroyed an agreement to settle, and even these cases are undercut by Nichols: Cheverie v. Geisser, 783 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) involved the repeated refusal of the insurer to remove indemnification language from a proposed 6
12 release form, plus other deal-breakers insisted on by the insurer. The agreement to settle in Cheverie did not collapse because the insurer proposed a release with objectionable indemnification language, but because the parties failed during a reasonable time following agreement to negotiate the form of the release. In Bateski v. Ransom, 658 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), the personal injury plaintiff s offer to settle was accompanied by a release form which the plaintiff s attorney stated would be the only release the plaintiff would sign. The offeror thus expressly made the form of the release an essential element of the agreement. When Hartford responded by submitting releases without the objectionable language, (Op. at 3) there was a meeting of the minds, contrary to the district court s holding that there was no meeting of the minds as to whether indemnification language would be included in the releases. (Op. at 4) Why didn t Hartford have a reasonable opportunity to formulate a mutually agreeable release as in Abe, Boyco, et cet., supra? Because Nichols has established a one-strike-and-you re-out rule in the First District. The law is clear: contracts should be upheld and settlements encouraged. Parties to a contract do not have to deal with every contingency in order to have an enforceable contract. Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla. 1985) Where the parties have said the same thing as to the essential elements... the 7
13 settlement should be enforced. Robbie at [S]ettlements are highly favored and will be enforced whenever possible. Robbie at Contrary to this law, Nichols requires the insurer to speculate, at great risk to both the insured and itself, what is and what is not acceptable language for a release. Any disagreement by plaintiff renders the agreement, otherwise reached, a nullity, because the insurer only gets one strike. Second, Nichols conflicts with Florida law that allows an insurer a reasonable time to negotiate an acceptable release. The legal standard governing an insurer s settlement conduct is one of reasonableness. Cruz v. American United Ins. Co., 580 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In Infinity Ins. Co. v. Berges, 806 So. 2d 504, 508(Fla. 2d DCA 2001), rev. granted 826 So. 2d 991(2002)(case no. SC argued Feb. 4, 2003), the Second District ruled that [s]ince Infinity had no reasonable opportunity to settle the claim [within the time demanded by the personal injury plaintiff], Infinity could not have acted in bad faith as a matter of law. Id. at 508. By contrast, Nichols holds that an insurer s mere submission of a proposed release with language that the plaintiff refuses to accept is a counter offer which destroys the deal. Nichols does not afford an insurer a reasonable opportunity to settle the claim. If this lack of opportunity proves to be a valid defense to a subsequent bad-faith action, then the hapless insured will be left with (a.) no settlement; (b.) an excess judgment; and (c.) no recourse against the liability carrier for bad-faith to cover this excess 8
14 exposure because the plaintiff never afforded the insurer a reasonable opportunity to settle the claim. Is this good public policy? CONCLUSION Nichols conflicts with the following aspects of Florida law: (1) the formation of contracts under Robbie, supra; (2) the public policy favoring settlements; (3) the financial protection of insureds from excess judgments; (4) the provision of a reasonable opportunity to liability insurers to settle claims under Cruz, supra; (5) section (recognizing settlements prior to final agreement as to the form of a release); (6) Dania, Abe, Erhardt, Boyco and Martell, supra (all holding the plaintiff s execution of a release is a ministerial act and the form of the release is not an essential element of the agreement); and (7) the power of trial courts to enforce settlements and compel execution of release documents. This Court possesses the jurisdiction to review this case and it should do so to protect Florida s insureds and to inject a measure of certainty into the business of settling liability claims. Respectfully submitted, BUTLER PAPPAS WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP KATHY J. MAUS, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: ANTHONY J. RUSSO, ESQ. 9
15 Florida Bar No.: Thomasville Road, Suite 102 Tallahassee, Florida Phone: (850) Attorneys for Petitioners CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by regular U.S. Mail this day of March 2003, to: Jeremy E. Cohen, Esq Maclay Commerce Drive Tallahassee, FL Michael T. Callahan, Esq Delta Boulevard, Suite 101 Tallahassee, FL ANTHONY J. RUSSO, ESQ. CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE & STYLE Petitioner certifies that the type, size, and style utilized in this Brief is 14 point Times New Roman, which is 10 characters per inch. ANTHONY J. RUSSO, ESQ. 10
IN 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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 informationThird District Court of Appeal
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 21, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-891 Lower Tribunal No. 14-27810 Wickberto Marin,
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 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 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 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 informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D11-592
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2012 RYAN TROUT, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D11-592 JAMES APICELLA AND DONALD MEDLAR, ET AL., Appellees. / Opinion filed
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CV-T-17MAP.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-11973 Non-Argument Calendar D. C. Docket No. 05-00073-CV-T-17MAP [DO NOT PUBLISH] FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOV
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
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. 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 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 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 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 informationJUDGE WATSON'S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OMNIBUS ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS DATED DECEMBER 20, 2013
Filing # 8818506 Electronically Filed 01/06/2014 10:45:52 AM RECEIVED, 1/6/2014 10:48:40, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY
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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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.:
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 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 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 Kathy Maus and Julius F. Parker, III, of Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HORACE MANN INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
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. 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
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 informationCLM 2016 New York Conference December 1, 2016 New York, New York
CLM 2016 New York Conference December 1, 2016 New York, New York Adjuster training - Teaching Good Faith to prevent Bad Faith, Including Practice Advice to Avoid Extra-Contractual Claims in the Claim Handling
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 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. 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 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 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 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 informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC95889 PARIENTE, J. BONNIE ROSEN, Petitioner, vs. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Respondent. [September 20, 2001] We have for review Rosen v. Florida Insurance Guaranty
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Supreme Court Case No.: District Court Case No.: 3D HACIENDA LOMA LINDA, Petitioner,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Supreme Court Case No.: District Court Case No.: 3D05-1331 HACIENDA LOMA LINDA, Petitioner, v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, SCOTTS-SIERRA HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, and BOB SANTANA,
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 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, 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
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 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 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. 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC
DANIEL C. O=CONNOR and SUSETTE O=CONNOR, his wife, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC05-2070 3 RD DCA CASE NO. 3D04-3019 vs. Petitioners, GERALD A. CASTIGLIANO, Respondent. / ON
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 informationPEGGY WARD CASE NO.: CVA LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 06-CC-3986 Appellant,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PEGGY WARD CASE NO.: CVA1 06-46 LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 06-CC-3986 Appellant, v. RAK CHARLES TOWNE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
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 informationIN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Security First Insurance Company, Case No. 1D14-1864 Lower Case No. 149960-14 Appellant, v. State of Florida, Office of Insurance Regulation,
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 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 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 informationI. Introduction. Appeals this year was Fisher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2015 COA
Fisher v. State Farm: A Case Analysis September 2015 By David S. Canter I. Introduction One of the most important opinions to be handed down from the Colorado Court of Appeals this year was Fisher v. State
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, Petitioner, Sup. Ct. Case No. SC11-1854 v. DCA Case No. 4D10-456 Lower Case No. 08-13474 CACE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
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 informationNASP Article for 2012 Fall Issue of Subrogator Magazine
NASP Article for 2012 Fall Issue of Subrogator Magazine By: Mary Jo Kuusela, Partner 1 Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP 777 S. Harbour Island Boulevard, Suite 500 Tampa, FL 33602 Experts When to
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY. v. No CA ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
E-Filed Document Sep 11 2017 10:34:38 2016-CA-00359-SCT Pages: 12 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY APPELLANT v. No. 2016-CA-00359 ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
More informationProcedural Considerations For Insurance Coverage Declaratory Judgment Actions
Procedural Considerations For Insurance Coverage Declaratory Judgment Actions New York City Bar Association October 24, 2016 Eric A. Portuguese Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP 1 Introduction Purpose of
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 APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. Circuit Court Case No.
IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY Warren Redlich, Appellant vs. Circuit Court Case No. 2016-000045-AC-01 State of Florida, Appellee /
More informationAppellant, CASE NO. 1D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Appellant,
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 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 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 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 informationAUTO INSURACE BAD FAITH CLAIMS IN VIRGINIA
AUTO INSURACE BAD FAITH CLAIMS IN VIRGINIA PRESENTED BY JEREMY FLACHS, ESQUIRE LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY FLACHS 6601 LITTLE RIVER TURNPIKE SUITE 315 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22312 September 30, 2016 BAD FAITH-AUTO
More informationIn The Supreme Court of Virginia EBENEZER MANU, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY,
In The Supreme Court of Virginia RECORD NO: 160852 EBENEZER MANU, Appellant, v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY CASE NO. CL-2015-6367 REPLY BRIEF OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 45 July 14, 2016 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Roman KIRYUTA, Respondent on Review, v. COUNTRY PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner on Review. (CC 130101380; CA A156351; SC S063707)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: SC Lower Tribunal Nos. 2D , 2D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BARRY L. BERGES, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: SC01-2846 Lower Tribunal Nos. 2D99-5014, 2D00-1972 INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY formerly known as Dixie Insurance Company, Respondent.
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 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 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 informationPETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC04-2422 Lower Court Case No. 1D03-4547 JEROME LOVETT, : : Petitioner, : : v. : : MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, : : Respondent. : : PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION RICHARD
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 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 IOWA NO SAMUEL DE DIOS, INDEMNITY INSRUANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and BRODSIPRE SERVICES, INC.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO. 18-1227 ELECTRONICALLY FILED NOV 09, 2018 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT SAMUEL DE DIOS, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, INDEMNITY INSRUANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and BRODSIPRE SERVICES,
More informationCase 1:15-cv LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-00236-LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF/ COUNTER-DEFENDANT
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 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 Florida
Supreme Court of Florida ANSTEAD, J. No. SC06-1088 JUAN E. CEBALLO, et al., Petitioners, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent. [September 20, 2007] This case is before the Court for
More informationOF FLORIDA. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jeri Beth Cohen, Judge. Pollack & Rosen, P.A., and Mark E. Pollack, for appellants.
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. 2006 METRO BUILDING MATERIALS CORP. and MANUEL
More informationERISA. Representative Experience
ERISA RMKB s ERISA practice group has extensive experience representing insurance carriers, employers, plan administrators, claims administrators, and benefits plans against claims brought under the Employee
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY
[Cite as Sturgill v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2013-Ohio-688.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY DENVER G. STURGILL, : : Plaintiff-Appellant, : Case No. 12CA8 : vs. :
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 13, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Nos. 3D17-1457, 3D17-1500 & 3D17-1527 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 3, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-1086 Lower Tribunal No. 09-92831 GEICO General
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 informationPitfalls of Adding Clients or Other Design Professionals as Additional Insureds
BluePrint For Design Professionals Pitfalls of Adding Clients or Other Design Professionals as Additional Insureds By Thomas Hay and Kevin Kieffer Architects and engineers who obtain professional liability
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 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 information