Barber v. Oxios

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barber v. Oxios

668 So. 2d 1051, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1580, 1996 WL 72212

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1996

DocketNo. 93-3519

StatusPublished

This text of 668 So. 2d 1051 (Barber v. Oxios) 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

Barber v. Oxios, 668 So. 2d 1051, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1580, 1996 WL 72212 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse. The trial court granted summary judgment, determining that California Insurance Code section 11580.2(i) (West 1994) required the filing of a suit against the uninsured tortfeasor as a condition precedent to recovery under a contract of uninsured/underinsured insurance execut[1052]*1052ed in California. However, subsequent to the trial court’s order, the California Supreme Court determined that section 11580.2(i) did not apply to underinsured motorist claims. Quintano v. Mercury Casualty Co., 11 Cal.4th 1049, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 906 P.2d 1057 (Cal.1995). We apply the law in effect at the time of the appellate decision. Cantor v. Davis, 489 So.2d 18 (Fla.1986). From the record this appears to be an accident involving an underinsured tortfeasor, although this determination was not made by the trial court. Therefore, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., and KROLL, KATHLEEN J., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse. The trial court granted summary judgment, determining that California Insurance Code section 11580.2(i) (West 1994) required the filing of a suit against the uninsured tortfeasor as a condition precedent to recovery under a contract of uninsured/underinsured insurance execut[1052]*1052ed in California. However, subsequent to the trial court’s order, the California Supreme Court determined that section 11580.2(i) did not apply to underinsured motorist claims. Quintano v. Mercury Casualty Co., 11 Cal.4th 1049, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 906 P.2d 1057 (Cal.1995). We apply the law in effect at the time of the appellate decision. Cantor v. Davis, 489 So.2d 18 (Fla.1986). From the record this appears to be an accident involving an underinsured tortfeasor, although this determination was not made by the trial court. Therefore, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., and KROLL, KATHLEEN J., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 So. 2d 1051, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1580, 1996 WL 72212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-oxios-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack