ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Gregorski

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Gregorski

246 So. 3d 574

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 2018

DocketNo. 3D18–508

StatusPublished

This text of 246 So. 3d 574 (ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Gregorski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Gregorski, 246 So. 3d 574 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ace American Insurance Company ("Insurer") seeks a writ of certiorari quashing a circuit court order denying the Insurer's motion to dismiss the respondent's, Mr. Gregorski's, complaint for declaratory relief. The petition and appendix established that Mr. Gregorski's complaint for third-party coverage failed to comply with the non-joinder provisions of section 627.4136, Florida Statutes (2017).

Mr. Gregorski's counsel in the circuit court proceeding did not appear in response to the petition, nor did Mr. Gregorski himself file a response. Finding the petition well taken, we grant it and quash the order denying the Insurer's motion to dismiss. Lantana Ins., Ltd. v. Thornton, 118 So.3d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). See also GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 240 So.3d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Petition granted, order quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Ace American Insurance Company ("Insurer") seeks a writ of certiorari quashing a circuit court order denying the Insurer's motion to dismiss the respondent's, Mr. Gregorski's, complaint for declaratory relief. The petition and appendix established that Mr. Gregorski's complaint for third-party coverage failed to comply with the non-joinder provisions of section 627.4136, Florida Statutes (2017).

Mr. Gregorski's counsel in the circuit court proceeding did not appear in response to the petition, nor did Mr. Gregorski himself file a response. Finding the petition well taken, we grant it and quash the order denying the Insurer's motion to dismiss. Lantana Ins., Ltd. v. Thornton, 118 So.3d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). See also GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 240 So.3d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Petition granted, order quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 So. 3d 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ace-am-ins-co-v-gregorski-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack