DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA. Appellant, Case No.: 1D Lower Case No.: 05-CA 4940

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA. Appellant, Case No.: 1D07-2727 Lower Case No.: 05-CA 4940"

Transcription

1 CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA vs. Appellant, Case No.: 1D Lower Case No.: 05-CA 4940 EAST PASS TOWERS II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. Appellee. / ON APPEAL FROM OKALOOSA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE, EAST PASS TOWERS II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. WILLIAM F. MERLIN, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No: MARY E. KESTENBAUM, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: So. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950 Tampa, FL Telephone: (813) Facsimile: (813) Attorneys for Appellee

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CITATIONS.....ii-iii PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS.1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ISSUES ON APPEAL...7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ARGUMENT CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE i

3 TABLE OF CITATIONS CASE LAW PAGE Allstate Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 790 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 786 So. 2d 645, 646 (Fla. 3d DCA). 10 approved, 833 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2002) American Reliance Ins. Co. v. Devecht, 820 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 10 Barbe v. Villeneube, 505 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1987) Bryan v. Bryan, 930 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).16 Callihan v. Kraals, 523 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) 15 Falloon v. Caladonian Ins. Co., 161 Cal. App. 2d 522, 327 P. 2d 18 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958) 20 Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999). 15 In Re: Temporary Commission of Investigation of the State of New York v. French, 418 N.Y.S. 2d 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) 20 Keech v. Yousef, 815 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2002) 15 Kemp v. McDonough, 955 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2007) 15 Kendall Lakes Townhomes Developers, Inc. v. Agricultural Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 916 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) Leonardo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 675 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1996).19 Marr v. Webb, 930 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). 12, 13 ii

4 Miller v. Miller, 709 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) 15 New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. J.H. Blackshear, Inc., 116 Fla. 289, 156 So. 695 (Fla. 1934) Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 643 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) Preferred Nat l Ins. Co. v. Miami Springs Golf Villas, Inc., 789 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)..10 Regalado v. Cabezas, 959 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) 9, 12, 13, 14 Schleger v. Stebelsky, 957 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2007)..22 Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327 (1989).. 11 State v. Cubic, 946 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2007) Three Palms Pointe, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 250 F.Supp. 2d 1357 (M.D. Fla. 2003). 10 aff d 362 F. 3d 1317(11th Cir. 2004) 10 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Romay, 744 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).. 11, 20 STATUTES , Fla. Stat , Fla. Stat (1), Fla. Stat..13, 14 iii

5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In this Answer Brief, Appellee, East Pass Towers II Condominium Association, Inc., refers to itself as Appellee or East Pass. Appellee refers to Appellant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation as Appellant or Citizens. Appellee refers to the Record on Appeal with the prefix R. followed by the page number. 1

6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS East Pass accepts Citizens statement of the case and fact with the following additions and corrections. This matter involves an insurance dispute between East Pass and its windstorm insurer, Citizens, following a Hurricane Ivan loss in September, When the parties did not reach an agreement on the amount of damage sustained by East Pass, the Citizens policy s appraisal clause was invoked. According to that appraisal clause, if the parties cannot agree on the amount of the loss, each party will choose an appraiser, and the two appraisers will choose an independent and competent umpire to resolve the dispute. (R. 339). A decision agreed to by any two will set the amount of the loss. (R. 339). As contemplated by the appraisal provision, East Pass and Citizens each chose an appraiser. East Pass chose Scott Favre, and Citizens chose Douglas McColl. (R , 42-44). When the two appraisers were unable to agree on an independent and competent umpire, East Pass filed a petition to appoint umpire with the trial court on December 9, (R. 1-4). The trial court entered an agreed order appointing Herman Johnson as the umpire on February 1, (R. 7). The umpire and the appraiser for the insured signed an appraisal award on June 7 and 8, 2006, in the amount of $4,625, (R. 70). 2

7 Instead of paying the appraisal award, as required by the policy, Citizens filed a motion with the trial court to vacate the award on June 26, (R. 8-17). Citizens motion alleged that its appraiser was not afforded an opportunity to inspect the premises or evaluate the nature and extent of the damages sustained by East Pass. (R. 8-17). In support of this motion, Citizens submitted an affidavit signed by Douglas McColl. (R ). East Pass asked the trial court to confirm the appraisal award. (R ). East Pass submitted the affidavits of Bob Ludeke, the president of the association, as well as Scott Favre and the umpire, Herman Johnson. (R , 45-46, 47-48). Citizens responded further by filing an additional affidavit of Douglas McColl s assistant, Richard Meinhardt. (R ). All affidavits demonstrated that, on March 22, 2006, Scott Favre and Douglas McColl met at the damaged East Pass property. (R ). The affidavits disagreed about what transpired during that meeting. Douglas McColl claimed he was told that he would only be allowed to inspect one condominium unit on that date. (R ). However, there is nothing in the remainder of Douglas McColl s affidavit to suggest he was denied access to the property between March 22, 2006, and the date the appraisal award was signed by the East Pass appraiser and the umpire. 3

8 Scott Favre and Bob Ludeke claimed in their affidavits that Douglas McColl was offered the opportunity to view all units during the March 22, 2006, inspection, but he declined to do so. (R , 45-46). According to Scott Favre, at that time, Douglas McColl stated he would never sign an award in favor of this insured, as he felt the insured had already been overpaid and if an award was going to be made, it would require the umpire s involvement. (R ). Although Douglas McColl s affidavit stated that he requested but never received a copy of Scott Favre s estimate, Scott Favre stated that he sent all requested documentation to Douglas McColl the day after the March 22, 2006, meeting. (R , 42-44). The umpire, Herman Johnson, stated in his affidavit that he attempted, three times, over a period of three months, to have Douglas McColl visit the property for additional inspections, after the initial meeting. Herman Johnson stated his attempts were unsuccessful and Mr. McColl did not visit the property. (R ). According to Mr. Johnson, when he did not receive a response from Douglas McColl, he went to the property himself, and viewed 10 to 12 units around May 12, (R ). Herman Johnson stated that Douglas McColl s failure to view the East Pass property was a result of Mr. McColl s own inaction, and that he provided Mr. McColl an opportunity to present any evidence concerning the East Pass property within a reasonable time frame. (R ). 4

9 Following the submission of these affidavits, the trial court conducted a hearing on November 21, 2006, on Citizens motion to vacate the appraisal award and on the East Pass motion to confirm the award. (R ). The hearing was not set as an evidentiary hearing and, in fact, Citizens counsel stated on the record that an evidentiary hearing was not required in order for the court to rule on the issues at hand. (R. 221). Citizens argued at the hearing that the appraisal award should be set aside because the appraisers did not separately set the amount of loss and because Mr. McColl was not involved in the appraisal process. (R. 221). East Pass argued that Mr. McColl s lack of participation was his own fault, as evidenced by the affidavits submitted on behalf of East Pass, and that the umpire did not rubber stamp Scott Favre s estimate, but prepared an award based on his independent review. (R ). East Pass also argued that it was not inappropriate under these circumstances for the umpire to step in and act when Citizens appraiser failed to act. (R ). The trial judge listened to both sides arguments, reviewed the affidavits, and noted that more than two years after the hurricane the insured had still not received all payments owed by its insurer. (R. 241). The trial judge requested proposed orders from both sides as to how the parties would like the court to rule. (R ). 5

10 Both parties submitted proposed orders, and the trial judge signed the order confirming the award that was submitted by counsel for East Pass. (R ). Citizens moved for reconsideration, and that motion was denied, with final judgment entered. (R , ). Citizens ultimately appealed the denial of its motion to vacate the award. 6

11 ISSUE ON APPEAL WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED CITIZENS MOTION TO VACATE AND INSTEAD GRANTED THE EAST PASS MOTION TO CONFIRM THE APPRAISAL AWARD, WHEN THE COURT WAS PRESENTED WITH A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR CONFIRMATION WITH RESPECT TO THIS ALTERNATIVE TO LITIGATION, AND WHEN CITIZENS DID NOT REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ORDERS AS REQUESTED BY THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE. 7

12 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Approximately three years after Hurricane Ivan struck the panhandle of Florida, East Pass has still not been paid the money owed to it by its insurer, Citizens. This insurance dispute, concerning the amount of the East Pass loss, appropriately proceeded to an insurance policy-authorized appraisal, and a proper appraisal award was entered in favor of East Pass in the amount of $4,625, During the appraisal process, when Citizens appraiser failed to properly act within the scope of his appointment as an appraiser, the umpire and the East Pass appraiser appropriately agreed to an award. After the award was entered, Citizens complained and asked the trial court to set aside the award by seeking a ruling premised on affidavits addressing the appraisal process. Significantly, appraisal is a favored method of dispute resolution, and an appraisal award should not be set aside lightly. The trial court properly confirmed the award based on the information at hand and the chosen procedural mechanism. Citizens cannot now argue that an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted, or that the order submitted by East Pass s counsel should not have been signed, when Citizens did not object to that process at the trial court level. The trial court was within its authority to confirm the award, and to enter final judgment in favor of East Pass. The trial court s judgment should be affirmed. 8

13 ARGUMENT THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED CITIZENS MOTION TO VACATE AND INSTEAD GRANTED THE EAST PASS MOTION TO CONFIRM THE APPRAISAL AWARD, WHEN THE COURT WAS PRESENTED WITH A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR CONFIRMATION WITH RESPECT TO THIS ALTERNATIVE TO LITIGATION, AND WHEN CITIZENS DID NOT REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ORDERS AS REQUESTED BY THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE. Citizens Initial Brief notes that an appellate court reviews an order granting or denying a motion to vacate an arbitration award as to questions of law by a de novo standard. Regalado v. Cabezas, 959 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). However, Regalado notes that an appellate court reviews findings of fact under the competent substantial evidence standard, and that the appellate review must be limited, with a high degree of conclusiveness attaching to the arbitration award. The narrow scope of appellate review is necessary to ensure that arbitration does not become merely an added preliminary step to judicial resolution, rather than a true alternative. Id. Accordingly, East Pass submits that matters of law contained within this appeal should be addressed under a de novo standard, but that facts considered by the trial court judge should be reviewed by looking at whether competent substantial evidence supported the trial court s decision-making process. This 9

14 Court should focus on the limited scope of review available to Citizens in this appeal. The insurance policy appraisal process is an alternative to litigation and should be encouraged, not thwarted or second-guessed. As noted in the trial court s Order granting the East Pass motion to confirm the appraisal award: Appraisal provisions are commonly found in insurance policies for the purpose of resolving disputes concerning the valuation of a loss. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 786 So. 2d 645, 646 (Fla. 3d DCA), approved, 833 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2002). Appraisal clauses are sometimes compared to arbitration procedures; however, since they involve alternative dispute resolution provisions, they are more limited processes concerning only the value of the loss, and they are conducted informally. See id. Although appraisals are not conducted as formally as arbitrations, the Florida Arbitration Code s confirmation process and other mechanisms have been recognized as appropriately utilized in the appraisal context. See, e.g., Three Palms Pointe, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 250 F.Supp. 2d 1357 (M.D. Fla. 2003), aff d 362 F. 3d 1317(11th Cir. 2004). As explained by Judge Moody, the District Court in Three Palms Pointe found that: Numerous Florida District Court of Appeal decisions have affirmed confirmation of appraisal awards utilizing Florida s Arbitration Code s confirmation process. See, e.g., American Reliance Ins. Co. v. Devecht, 820 So. 2d 378, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (citing Florida Statute while confirming an appraisal award); also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 790 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (affirming confirmation of appraisal); Preferred Nat l Ins. Co. v. Miami Springs Golf Villas, Inc., 789 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding same). 10

15 While acknowledging some differences between appraisal and arbitration provisions, Florida courts have generally treated appraisal clauses as narrowly restricted arbitration provisions. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Romay, 744 So. 2d 467, 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). For example, Florida courts have repeatedly utilized Florida Statutes as a basis to compel appraisals. See New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. J.H. Blackshear, Inc., 116 Fla. 289, 156 So. 695, 696 (Fla. 1934); Romay, 744 So. 2d 467, 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (listing numerous cases); Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 643 So. 2d 1101, (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (listing additional cases). Id. at Florida s Arbitration Code allows for confirmation of an award in , Fla. Stat. The Code also contains a mechanism for vacating an award under certain limited circumstances. See , Fla. Stat. Although an insurance policy appraisal is not a true arbitration, and an appraisal does not follow a formal hearing procedure or utilize the other trappings of formality of arbitration, the court s ability to overturn an appraisal award must have certain limitations attached to it. This Court looks to the standard of review for vacating an arbitration award under Florida law, and must find that there are only limited circumstances when such a drastic step is appropriate. See Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327 (1989). In this case, the question is whether reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the actions taken by the umpire. The Court finds that Citizens has not met its burden in that regard, and the submission of affidavits in support of its argument after the entry of the appraisal award, which are refuted by the affidavits submitted by East Pass, do not compel a finding that there was any impropriety or abuse of discretion in the umpire s conduct. There is no legal authority allowing an insurer to circumvent the appraisal process and delay payment under the guise of motions filed after the appraisal has occurred, if the insurer is not happy with 11

16 how the process was handled. If such were the case, each appraisal would merely be one more layer in the judicial process, and the public policy behind prompt resolution of claims would be defeated. Citizens has not met its burden to set aside the appraisal award, and this Court confirms the award as requested by East Pass. (R ). In this case, the trial court appropriately analyzed the legal standards and facts at hand, and appropriately determined that the appraisal award should stand. Citizens Initial Brief cites case law reinforcing the limited basis for reviewing a motion to vacate an arbitration award that has been denied by a trial court. In discussing the standard of review for this Court to utilize in reviewing the trial court s order confirming the East Pass appraisal award, Citizens cites Regalado v. Cabezas, 959 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Regalado dealt with a claim that the trial court erred in failing to set aside an arbitration award. See id. The Regalado court noted its limited ability to look beyond such an award, noting that arbitration is intended to be an alternative to litigation. Id., citing Marr v. Webb, 930 So. 2d 734, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The Regalado court looked to the grounds set forth in Section (1), Fla. Stat., 1 and also addressed the argument that the trial court erred in not 1 The statute provides that an arbitration award can be vacated for reasons such as: procuring the award by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; evident partiality by an arbitrator or umpire; demonstrating that the arbitrators or umpire exceeded their powers; refusing to postpone the arbitration hearing upon sufficient cause 12

17 entertaining an evidentiary hearing after the submission of affidavits in support of the motion to vacate the award. See id. In reviewing the affidavits, the Regalado court determined that the affidavits did not set forth a prima facie case for vacation of the award under (1), as was being claimed under the facts of that case, and therefore there was no need for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to a motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P (b)(3). 2 See id. In looking at the argument that the arbitrators awarded relief when a trial court might not have done so under the particular facts of the case, the Regalado court noted that the arbitrator is the sole judge of the evidence and we will not disturb [his] findings on appeal. Id., citing Marr, 930 So. 2d at 738. Thus, the Regalado court affirmed the judgment confirming the awards. See id. In the case currently before this Court, both parties recognize that an insurance policy appraisal is similar in some way to, but in other ways different from, an arbitration. The differences are most easily seen by the informal nature of an appraisal process, rather than the formal evidence-presenting aspects of an arbitration. Citizens recognizes the similarity of the two in the way courts look at appraisal awards by citing to the arbitration standard of appellate review for purposes of asking this Court to overturn the appraisal award, and by seeking to being shown or refusing to hear evidence at the arbitration; no provision existing for arbitration to have occurred under the circumstances (1), Fla. Stat. 13

18 vacate the award under the mechanism discussed in the Florida Arbitration Code. Yet, if this Court analyzes the confirmation of the award under the standards enunciated by Regalado, it must find that the trial court s conclusions were proper. As explained more fully below, East Pass position is that Citizens waived and/or did not preserve the right to argue an evidentiary hearing should have taken place. However, even if this Court is able to evaluate the question of the appropriateness of an evidentiary hearing, there was no prima facie showing of the need for vacation of the award under (1), Fla. Stat. Further, as was the case in Regalado, in this case, sufficient facts demonstrate that the umpire acted appropriately, as did the trial court. Finally, no question of law was misjudged in any way. Citizens cannot complain about the procedural process at the trial court level when that objection is raised for the first time on appeal. Citizens Initial Brief argues that the trial court reversibly erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the question of confirming or vacating the award, and that the trial court erred in adopting an order presented by counsel for East Pass. The significant fact missing from this argument is that Citizens never requested an evidentiary hearing. Rather, Citizens counsel affirmatively stated 2 The procedural mechanism used in that case to seek to vacate the arbitration 14

19 that no evidentiary hearing was needed to rule on these issues. (R. 221). As a result, Citizens has waived and/or has not preserved this alleged error as a basis for overturning the trial court s order. Florida courts find that an appellate court cannot rule on an argument raised for the first time on appeal, when that issue was not raised before the trial court. See, e.g., Keech v. Yousef, 815 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2002); Kemp v. McDonough, 955 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2007); State v. Cubic, 946 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2007). If a party believes that evidence should have been addressed by the trial court, that party owes a duty to proffer the evidence to the court. See Callihan v. Kraals, 523 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). An issue must be ruled upon at the trial court level in order for an appellate court to make a ruling on appeal. See Miller v. Miller, 709 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In this case, Citizens cannot claim the failure to receive evidence, other than the filed affidavits, as a reason for reversal, since Citizens agreed to the procedure of submitting affidavits to the trial court for the purpose of obtaining a ruling. Instead of affirmatively stating before the trial court that an evidentiary hearing was not needed, Citizens should have sought an evidentiary hearing if it wished to complain about the absence of one to this Court. Citizens invited the alleged error it now seeks to assert. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999) award was a motion to set aside the judgment under this rule of civil procedure. 15

20 (explaining that a party cannot make or invite error and then use that error as a basis to appeal). Citizens also did not object to the trial court s procedure in requesting proposed orders from both parties at the end of the hearing. Thus, again, Citizens cannot claim error in this process, merely because the judge chose the East Pass proposed order. See, e.g., Bryan v. Bryan, 930 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (a party cannot invite error and seek relief on appeal, such that where the party does not object to a trial court s request for proposed orders, and then the trial court rules on one of those proposed orders, the appellate court cannot reverse the order on appeal). Although East Pass does not agree that the trial court acted inappropriately in either ruling on the submitted affidavits, or in asking both parties counsel to submit proposed orders, Citizens cannot now complain about the practice, since it agreed with the trial court s proposal and submitted its own proposed order. Citizens complaint arises from the fact that the trial court chose the East Pass-submitted order and Citizens cannot now claim any error in the trial court s procedural process. Appellate review at this juncture must be limited. This Court should recognize that this appeal is Citizens second attempt to have the appraisal award overturned after the appraisal process was over. 16

21 Importantly, neither Citizens nor its appraiser ever sought assistance or guidance from the trial court during the entire appraisal process. Only after the appraisal did criticism come to light. Courts are only given limited opportunities to involve themselves after the appraisal process is over, so that the process does not become one more step in litigation. Appraisal is intended to speed up resolution of a dispute, not slow it down. An insurer, such as Citizens, should not be allowed to file an affidavit after the fact and have the entire process break down. In this case, the trial court determined the umpire did not abuse his discretion in moving forward with the appraisal when he was unable to obtain the involvement of the insurer s appraiser. The trial court reviewed the competing affidavits, and appropriately found that Citizens had not met its burden to set aside the award or to take further action. Now, on a second level review, this Court must find substantial competent evidence to support the trial court s rulings on the facts, and that any implicated questions of law were appropriately addressed. One of Citizens complaints attempts to invoke the insurance policy s cooperation clause. Citizens cites to its appraiser s affidavit, stating he was not afforded an opportunity to inspect enough units of the condominium property. Yet both the East Pass appraiser and the umpire cite Mr. McColl s inaction as the reason he did not conduct a proper inspection. In fact, Mr. McColl s affidavit does 17

22 not contradict the East Pass claim that McColl made no effort to view the damaged property after the March, 22, 2006, meeting. The trial court was within its right in not finding the Citizens affidavit to be sufficient to find violation of any duty to cooperate on the part of the insured. Moreover, as noted by the trial court, a violation of the policy s cooperation clause should have been raised before the award was signed. An insurer should be not allowed to sit back and do nothing, and then raise policy defenses after the fact. Citizens also claims that, because its appraiser did not submit a valuation of the loss, the appraisal process was somehow flawed, and that the failure of all three individuals to meet is somehow fatal. Unfortunately, Citizens is reaching beyond the ultimate award to try to make up for its appraiser s lack of follow through. If Citizens appraiser had been so concerned during this several month-long process that culminated in the appraisal award, that period of time should have been when intervention was sought, not after the award was entered. Citizens complaints are too little, too late. Citizens appraiser could have, and should have, consulted with the umpire, and if he was not happy with the way the process was progressing, he should have asked Citizens to address the matter before the award was signed. The appraisal process is not meant to be examined under a microscope after the fact. 18

23 When Citizens appraiser failed to act, the umpire acted within his scope of authority, and Citizens complaint about compliance with policy conditions is misplaced. Citizens Initial Brief continually cites to the policy language concerning an insured s obligation to cooperate and to produce the damaged property for inspection. However, Citizens is confusing the insured s duty to cooperate with the insurer with the obligations of the appraisers to discharge their duties. The policy obligations quoted by Citizens have no bearing on whether the umpire acted appropriately. Citizens agreed to enter into an appraisal, and Citizens failed to raise any of these arguments before the award was entered. Such conduct essentially acts as either a waiver or as an election of remedies, such that these arguments cannot be brought at this time. See, e.g., Leonardo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 675 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1996) (an insurer waived its right to deny its obligations under an insurance contract by conduct inconsistent with the denial of these obligations); Barbe v. Villeneube, 505 So. 2d 1331, 1332 (Fla. 1987) ( the election of remedies doctrine is an application of the doctrine of estoppel and operates on the theory that a party electing one course of action should not later be allowed to avail himself of an incompatible course ). In fact, courts in other jurisdictions have found that if an appraiser for one side does not properly fulfill his function, it is appropriate for the umpire to step in 19

24 and act in his place. See, e.g., Falloon v. Caladonian Ins. Co., 161 Cal. App. 2d 522, 327 P. 2d 18 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958). Courts have also found that is it not appropriate to go behind an arbitration decision to investigate and obtain evidence. See In Re: Temporary Commission of Investigation of the State of New York v. French, 418 N.Y.S. 2d 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979). Further, although Citizens brief cites to cases such as United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Romay, 744 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in support of its position, the Romay decision discussed an insured s obligations before the appraisal process was triggered. In this case, there is no issue as to whether the insured complied with the policy s conditions before the appraisal process began. Thus, Romay is irrelevant to the issues before this Court in addressing matters after appraisal was invoked. What matters is that the trial court ruled on the matters brought forth at the hearing concerning whether Citizens appraiser made an effort to inspect the property and whether the umpire acted appropriately. Citizens claim of appraisal irregularities is unfounded. Citizens Initial Brief cites to the affidavit of its appraiser to claim that significant irregularities occurred during the appraisal process. Again, if Citizens wished to raise this issue before the appraisal was completed, it should have done so at that time. Citizens sat back and did nothing, and should not be rewarded with a further delay in the process. 20

25 Citizens points out that the information utilized by the East Pass appraiser, Scott Favre, was provided to him by the public adjuster. This reference is apparently intended to suggest that the East Pass appraiser did not fulfill his duties properly. However, nothing in the policy s appraisal clause says an appraiser cannot rely on another individual s expertise in presenting information to the umpire. There is nothing to say that an estimate must be prepared by the appraiser himself. Citizens also cites to its appraiser s affidavit stating that the East Pass appraiser did not provide copies of his reports to the Citizens appraiser. Again, this claim was not made before the appraisal award was rendered, and East Pass presented affidavits saying that any requested information was provided. The trial court was entitled to weigh the affidavits and rule accordingly. Again, if Citizens took issue with the submission of the affidavits by East Pass in response to the affidavits submitted by Citizens, then Citizens should have raised that at the trial court level. Citizens references in its Initial Brief to hearsay in the affidavits is unavailing at this time, as no objections were raised during the initial hearing on the subject. The trial court hearing was not a motion for summary judgment, and disputes in the evidence were appropriately analyzed. There was no request for an evidentiary hearing, and there was no legal requirement for one to occur. 21

26 Further, even if this Court were to find that Citizens did not waive the right to an evidentiary hearing, Citizens current request for one is not supportable. Although Citizens cites to Schleger v. Stebelsky, 957 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2007), in support of its belief that an evidentiary hearing should have taken place, that case dealt with a motion for relief from judgment, not a motion to vacate an appraisal award, and the Schleger court s reference to a colorable argument is insurmountable in this case. In all, Citizens has not located any true citation of authority to support its claim under Florida law. For example, a case such as Kendall Lakes Townhomes Developers, Inc. v. Agricultural Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 916 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), is distinguishable. Like the present case, Kendall Lakes also dealt with confirmation of an appraisal award and the denial of a motion to vacate. See id. Citizens cites Kendall Lakes for the proposition that it is appropriate to reverse the confirmation when the umpire exceeds his authority. However, the facts of Kendall Lakes do not support Citizens position here. The reason the Kendall Lakes court reversed the confirmation was because the trial court s order appointing the umpire placed specific limitations on his authority, and the umpire made a ruling that was clearly in contravention of that court-appointed authority. See id. In this case, no such court order exists, and the trial court properly 22

27 determined that the umpire s conduct was appropriate based on the evidence at hand. Although Citizens can sit back now and say that it wants to speed up the appraisal process, the fact remains that the storm occurred three years ago, and East Pass does not have its money. A second appraisal would cause further delay and most likely no different result. Confirmation of the appraisal award was appropriate, and the umpire acted within the scope of his authority in signing the appraisal award. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, East Pass respectfully requests that this Court affirm the trial court s judgment and rulings in all respects. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing have been furnished to James M. Fishman, Esquire, James M. Fishman, P.A., 9655 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 102, Miami, Florida 33156, Lamar Conerly, Esquire, Law Offices of Lamar A. Conerly, P.O. Box 6944, Destin, Florida 32550, on this day of September, William F. Merlin, Jr., Esquire Florida Bar No.:

28 Mary E. Kestenbaum, Esquire Florida Bar No.: Merlin Law Group, P.A. 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950 Tampa, Florida Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for Appellee CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE We certify that this Answer Brief uses 14 point Times New Roman Type, a font that is proportionately spaced. Mary E. Kestenbaum, Esq. 24

IN 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 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA BARBRA R. JOYNER, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2012-CV-000003-A-O Lower Case No.: 2010-CC-010676-O v. ONE THOUSAND OAKS, INC.,

More information

v. CASE NO.: 2010-CV-15-A Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-19076-O

v. CASE NO.: 2010-CV-15-A Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-19076-O IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MAURICIO CHIROPRACTIC WEST, as assignee of Alesha Kirkland, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: 2010-CV-15-A Lower Court Case No.:

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2011

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2011 MAY, C.J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2011 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. LOUIS SILBER and ILENE SILBER, Appellees. Nos. 4D10-1549 and

More information

IN 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 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ALFA VISION INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. Appellant, TAMPA CHIROPRACTIC CENTER a/a/o VICTOR GUE, CASE NO.: 2011-CV-87 Lower

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Florida Government

More information

IN 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 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 FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY, ETC., Appellant,

More information

IN 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 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000005-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-012076-O v. EMERGENCY

More information

v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O

v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ELOURDE COLIN, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE

More information

IN 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 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT CRISTOBAL COLON, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-1012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-1012 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-1012 CAROLYN R. WADE, f/k/a CAROLYN R. HIRSCHMAN, Petitioner, v. L.T. No. 5D03-2797 MICHAEL D. HIRSCHMAN, Respondent. ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF

More information

ON REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF PETITIONERS, JAMIE BARDOL AND LORI BARDOL

ON REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF PETITIONERS, JAMIE BARDOL AND LORI BARDOL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC00-600 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 4th DISTRICT NO. 98-2918 JAMIE BARDOL AND LORI BARDOL, v. MARY MARTIN, Petitioners, Respondent. / ON REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT

More information

2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT 2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 THIRD DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALFREDO MEJIA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-2248 ) CITIZENS

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION County Civil Court: INSURANCE Personal Injury Protection - Appellant s pre-suit demand letter was statutorily sufficient under Section 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2012). The statute does not mandate that the

More information

IN 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 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000079-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-002127-O Appellant, v.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B254585

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B254585 Filed 2/26/15 Vega v. Goradia CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

ELAINE MORRIS, TRUSTEE, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-52-A-O TRULIET INVESTMENTS, LLC

ELAINE MORRIS, TRUSTEE, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-52-A-O TRULIET INVESTMENTS, LLC IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ELAINE MORRIS, TRUSTEE, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-52-A-O TRULIET INVESTMENTS, LLC v. Appellant, CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA Appellee.

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TODD I. GLASS Fine & Hatfield Evansville, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: MARK F. WARZECHA DAVID E. GRAY Bowers Harrison, LLP Evansville, Indiana IN THE COURT OF

More information

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia WHOLE COURT NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/ March

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 01-CV-810. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-7519-00)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 01-CV-810. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-7519-00) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILLIAM SUMMERS, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 2007 CA 5232 WS/H SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. /

More information

IN 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 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MEDICAL THERAPIES, LLC, f/k/a MEDICAL THERAPIES, INC., d/b/a ORLANDO PAIN CLINIC, as assignee of SONJA M. RICKS, CASE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D December 18, 2009 No. 09-10562 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JM WALKER

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 04-1461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Appellee.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 04-1461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Appellee. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 04-1461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Appellee. ************************************************************** ** ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION AA-53816-5/reo/20330947 L.T. CASE NO. 5D06-3639 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RANDALL B. WHITNEY, M.D., JAMES SCOTT PENDERGRAFT, IV, M.D., and ORLANDO WOMEN'S CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioners,

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying

More information

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. R.V. Swanson, Judge.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. R.V. Swanson, Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF

More information

Case 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Case 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 13-cv-00796-RPM MICHAEL DAY KEENEY, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior

More information

Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13-1186 For the Seventh Circuit IN RE: JAMES G. HERMAN, Debtor-Appellee. APPEAL OF: JOHN P. MILLER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

More information

In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014

In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014 IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, v. GREG ROLAND SMITH, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014 Appeal from

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 10-3272. In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor. ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 10-3272. In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor. ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-3272 In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor NOT PRECEDENTIAL ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. On Appeal from the United States District

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 14-1414 ALLEN L. FEINGOLD; PHILLIP GODDARD STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 14-1414 ALLEN L. FEINGOLD; PHILLIP GODDARD STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-1414 ALLEN L. FEINGOLD; PHILLIP GODDARD v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Phillip Goddard, Appellant On Appeal from the District

More information

FILED AND. TARASKA, GROWER, UNGER & KETCHAM, P.A. Ateorneys for Defendants SHIRLEY DOELFEL, ET VIR. vs. THOMAS P. TREVISANI, M.D., ET AL. Respondents.

FILED AND. TARASKA, GROWER, UNGER & KETCHAM, P.A. Ateorneys for Defendants SHIRLEY DOELFEL, ET VIR. vs. THOMAS P. TREVISANI, M.D., ET AL. Respondents. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SHIRLEY DOELFEL, ET VIR. vs. Petitioners, CASE NO: 83,218 District Court of Appeal 5th District - No. 93-2808 FILED THOMAS P. TREVISANI, M.D., ET AL. Respondents. I RESPONDENTS',

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2006

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2006 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2006 FREDERICK FISHER and CAROLINA FISHER, Appellants, v. CERTAIN INTERESTED UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS SUBSCRIBING TO CONTRACT

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION County Civil Court: INSURANCE Personal Injury Protection Policy language stating that any amounts payable under this coverage shall be subject to any and all limitations including, but not limited to,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 12, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-2622 Lower Tribunal No. 11-10021 Fernando Montes

More information

BRIEF OF APPELLANT. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. No. 2013-IA-00181. VICKSBURG HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a RIVER REGION HEALTH SYSTEM VS.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. No. 2013-IA-00181. VICKSBURG HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a RIVER REGION HEALTH SYSTEM VS. E-Filed Document Oct 28 2013 09:56:26 2013-IA-00181 Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. No. 2013-IA-00181 VICKSBURG HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a RIVER REGION HEALTH SYSTEM APPELLANT VS. CLARA

More information

NOT 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 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHELLE BOWERS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2D08-3251 STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2011

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2011 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2011 JON AGEE and SUSAN AGEE, Appellants, v. ROGER L. BROWN, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF HERBERT G. BIRCK and

More information

IN 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 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA FRANK GAY PLUMBING, INC. Appellant, CASE NO.: 2012-CV-19 Lower Case No.: 2011-SC-6767-A- O v. MCO ENTERPRISES, INC.,

More information

corporate Sponsorship Agreements - Without Evidence Is Not a Case Study

corporate Sponsorship Agreements - Without Evidence Is Not a Case Study Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: PATRICK J. DIETRICK THOMAS D. COLLIGNON MICHAEL B. KNIGHT Collignon & Dietrick, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JOHN E. PIERCE Plainfield, Indiana

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BRONSON HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC, d/b/a BRONSON METHODIST HOSPITAL, a Michigan nonprofit corporation, UNPUBLISHED July 16, 2015 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 321908 Kalamazoo

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014 JOYCE SMALL, Appellant, v. DEVON CONDOMINIUM B ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. Nos. 4D10-2302, 4D10-5243, 4D11-247 and 4D11-4119

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LUZ RIVERA AND ABRIANNA RIVERA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD MANZI Appellee No. 948 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order

More information

IN 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 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF

More information

Facts About Inverse Condemnation of Orange County (J.B.O).

Facts About Inverse Condemnation of Orange County (J.B.O). Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL J. ADLER Adler Law LLC Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: LEE F. BAKER ABBEY JEZIORSKI State Farm Litigation Counsel Indianapolis, Indiana IN

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2012. v. Case No. 5D10-3741

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2012. v. Case No. 5D10-3741 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2012 WHALEY FERNANDES, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D10-3741 VALERIE J. FERNANDES, Appellee. / Opinion filed April 20, 2012

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed September 19, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-353 Lower Tribunal No.

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. 1D05-1443 AHCA CASE NO.: 2005001780

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. 1D05-1443 AHCA CASE NO.: 2005001780 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA GULF PINES HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a GULF PINES HOSPITAL, vs. Petitioner, CASE NO. 1D05-1443 AHCA CASE NO.: 2005001780 STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED County Civil Court: CIVIL PROCEDURE Dismissal. The complaint was sufficient to withstand dismissal at this stage in the proceedings. Reversed and Remanded. True Builders, Inc., a/a/o Maria Aponte v. Prepared

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 11, 2015 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 11, 2015 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 11, 2015 Session JAY DANIEL, ET AL. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Tipton County No. 7087 Joe H. Walker, III,

More information

v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES,

v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STEPHEN SMITH, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

More information

In re Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. (Tex. App., 2013)

In re Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. (Tex. App., 2013) In re Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, Reed Insurance Adjusters, and Steven L. Matthews NO. 03-13-00003-CV TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN Filed: February 21, 2013 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

More information

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CASE LAW UPDATE INTRODUCTION ARBITRATION

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CASE LAW UPDATE INTRODUCTION ARBITRATION MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CASE LAW UPDATE by Lee Hornberger Arbitration and Mediation Office of Lee Hornberger INTRODUCTION This article reviews some Michigan Supreme Court and Court

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION LOUISE FOSTER Administrator of the : AUGUST TERM 2010 Estate of GEORGE FOSTER : and BARBARA DILL : vs.

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order

More information

No. 1-15-0941 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-15-0941 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 150941-U SIXTH DIVISION December 18, 2015 No. 1-15-0941 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

Case No.: 2007-CA-17336-O WRIT NO.: 07-72

Case No.: 2007-CA-17336-O WRIT NO.: 07-72 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. Case No.: 2007-CA-17336-O WRIT NO.: 07-72 DAVID W,

More information

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION PINE RIDGE SOUTH IV CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

More information

In re the Marriage of: SUSAN MARIE TRASK, Petitioner/Appellant, WADE MARTIN HANDLEY, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0543 FC

In re the Marriage of: SUSAN MARIE TRASK, Petitioner/Appellant, WADE MARTIN HANDLEY, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0543 FC NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:09-cv-1222-J-34JRK

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013 Opinion filed August 14, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Nos. 3D12-1096 & 3D12-1889 Lower Tribunal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D November 19, 2009 No. 09-20049 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA John A. Linder, Individually and as Mayor of City of Chester v. No. 739 C.D. 2013 City of Chester Chester City Council, Elizabeth Williams, Councilwoman Nafis

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case 0:10-cv-00772-PAM-RLE Document 33 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ideal Development Corporation, Mike Fogarty, J.W. Sullivan, George Riches, Warren Kleinsasser,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U. No. 1-14-1310 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U. No. 1-14-1310 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-1310 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit JRS MANAGEMENT, Appellant v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Appellee 2014-1834 Appeal from the Civilian

More information

2013 IL App (5th) 120093WC-U NO. 5-12-0093WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION

2013 IL App (5th) 120093WC-U NO. 5-12-0093WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION NOTICE Decision filed 08/20/13. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2013 IL App (5th 120093WC-U NO. 5-12-0093WC

More information

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) SIMMONS V. PRECAST HAULERS NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Thompson v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company et al Doc. 1 1 1 WO William U. Thompson, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, Property & Casualty Insurance

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Pekin Insurance Co. v. Rada Development, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 133947 Appellate Court Caption PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RADA DEVELOPMENT,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third 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. 3D14-1651 Lower Tribunal No. 13-4495 Yvette Soriano,

More information

Case: 04-16887 Doc #: 122 Filed: 10/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 OPINION DESIGNATED FOR ON - LINE PUBLICATION BUT NOT PRINT PUBLICATION

Case: 04-16887 Doc #: 122 Filed: 10/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 OPINION DESIGNATED FOR ON - LINE PUBLICATION BUT NOT PRINT PUBLICATION Case: 04-16887 Doc #: 122 Filed: 10/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 14 day of October, 2008. ROBERT E. NUGENT UNITED STATES CHIEF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE OPINION DESIGNATED FOR ON - LINE PUBLICATION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Petitioner, JAMES H. QUIRK and MARIE QUIRK, husband and wife, vs. Respondents, Cross-Petitioners, IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA SOUTHERN AMERICAN

More information

DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Appellate Division In the Case of: The Physicians Hospital in Anadarko, Petitioner, - v. - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. DATE:

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 10/11/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ED AGUILAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B238853 (Los Angeles County

More information

CASE NO. 1D13-5821. Adrian R. Bridges of Michles & Booth, P.A., Pensacola, for Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D13-5821. Adrian R. Bridges of Michles & Booth, P.A., Pensacola, for Respondent. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.

More information

Nos. 2 09 1120, 2 10 0146, 2 10 0781 cons. Order filed February 18, 2011 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

Nos. 2 09 1120, 2 10 0146, 2 10 0781 cons. Order filed February 18, 2011 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT Order filed February 18, 2011 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). IN

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT D.H., the Father, Appellant, v. T.N.L., the Mother and GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, Appellees. No. 4D15-3918 [ May 11, 2016 ] Appeal from

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. CASE NO.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. CASE NO. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant/Cross Appellee, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

2016 IL App (2d) 141240WC-U FILED: NO. 2-14-1240WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION

2016 IL App (2d) 141240WC-U FILED: NO. 2-14-1240WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2016 IL App (2d 141240WC-U FILED:

More information

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Debt Recovery Solutions of Ohio, Inc. v. Lash, 2009-Ohio-6205.] COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS OF OHIO, INC. -vs- Plaintiff-Appellee JEFFREY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- Filed 5/16/13; pub. order 6/12/13 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- STEVE SCHAEFER, Plaintiff and Respondent, C068229 (Super.

More information

HOW TO APPLY COINSURANCE AND DEDUCTIBLE CLAUSES IN PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICIES

HOW TO APPLY COINSURANCE AND DEDUCTIBLE CLAUSES IN PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICIES HOW TO APPLY COINSURANCE AND DEDUCTIBLE CLAUSES IN PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICIES William F. Merlin, Jr., Esquire Mary Kestenbaum, Esquire Merlin Law Group, P.A. 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., #950 Tampa, FL

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. Case No. 2:12-cv-45-FtM-29SPC OPINION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. Case No. 2:12-cv-45-FtM-29SPC OPINION AND ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION SOUTH BAY PLANTATION CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a not for profit corporation also known as SOUTH BAY PLANTATION ASSOCIATES,

More information

[Cite as State ex rel. Boston Hills Property Invests., L.L.C. v. Boston Hts., 2008-Ohio-5329.]

[Cite as State ex rel. Boston Hills Property Invests., L.L.C. v. Boston Hts., 2008-Ohio-5329.] [Cite as State ex rel. Boston Hills Property Invests., L.L.C. v. Boston Hts., 2008-Ohio-5329.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO ex rel.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,

More information

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Paul S. Bryan, Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

Case 13-09004-CL7 Filed 11/06/13 Entered 11/06/13 16:38:19 Doc 66 Pg. 1 of 6

Case 13-09004-CL7 Filed 11/06/13 Entered 11/06/13 16:38:19 Doc 66 Pg. 1 of 6 Case 13-09004-CL7 Filed 11/06/13 Entered 11/06/13 16:38:19 Doc 66 Pg. 1 of 6 November 6, 2013 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 325 West "F" Street, San Diego, California 92101-6991

More information