Amedex Insurance Co. v. Rothe ex rel. Collado

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amedex Insurance Co. v. Rothe ex rel. Collado

794 So. 2d 630, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3213, 2001 WL 245967

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-2064

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 794 So. 2d 630 (Amedex Insurance Co. v. Rothe ex rel. Collado) 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

Amedex Insurance Co. v. Rothe ex rel. Collado, 794 So. 2d 630, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3213, 2001 WL 245967 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEVIN, Judge.

Amedex Insurance Co. and U.S.A. Medical Services Corp. [collectively “Amedex”] [631]*631appeal a non-final order certifying a class in an action by Costa Rica residents whose health insurance policies were non-renewed. The class action seeks redress for Amedex’s alleged breach of identical insurance contract provisions as to policy re-newability. We reject Amedex’s contention that there is a conflict of interests between the class representatives and the absent class members or that the class was wrongly certified under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b). A thorough review of the record and the case law demonstrates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. See Shoma Dev. Corp. v. Vazquez, 749 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Oce Printing Sys. USA, Inc. v. Mailers Data Servs., Inc., 760 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Sys. I, Ltd., 694 So.2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Labora, 670 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So.2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So.2d 919 (Fla.1995). Cf. Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 429 So.2d 5 (Fla.1983). Accordingly, we affirm the order.

Affirmed.

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

SHEVIN, Judge.

Amedex Insurance Co. and U.S.A. Medical Services Corp. [collectively “Amedex”] [631]*631appeal a non-final order certifying a class in an action by Costa Rica residents whose health insurance policies were non-renewed. The class action seeks redress for Amedex’s alleged breach of identical insurance contract provisions as to policy re-newability. We reject Amedex’s contention that there is a conflict of interests between the class representatives and the absent class members or that the class was wrongly certified under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b). A thorough review of the record and the case law demonstrates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. See Shoma Dev. Corp. v. Vazquez, 749 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Oce Printing Sys. USA, Inc. v. Mailers Data Servs., Inc., 760 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Sys. I, Ltd., 694 So.2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Labora, 670 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So.2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So.2d 919 (Fla.1995). Cf. Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 429 So.2d 5 (Fla.1983). Accordingly, we affirm the order.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

794 So. 2d 630, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3213, 2001 WL 245967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amedex-insurance-co-v-rothe-ex-rel-collado-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack