Bonfiglio v. American Vehicle Insurance Co.

680 So. 2d 1100, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10497, 1996 WL 577498
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 9, 1996·No. No. 96-1495·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A PIP claimant seeks review of a circuit court, appellate division per curiam affir-mance of county court orders denying him attorney’s fees and costs and requiring arbitration. The merits of the appeal were for the circuit court to determine. We are convinced that its decision (either way) cannot be said to embody a “legal [error] serious enough to constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law,” Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 95 (Fla.1983), so as to permit our review on certiorari and thus, in effect, grant the petitioner a forbidden second appeal. Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla.1995); Combs, 436 So.2d at 93; Rich v. Fisher, 655 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

Certiorari denied.

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

Bonfiglio v. American Vehicle Insurance Co., 680 So. 2d 1100, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10497, 1996 WL 577498 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

680 So. 2d 1100 (Bonfiglio v. American Vehicle Insurance Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Britt v. Mascara
830 So. 2d 221 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
State v. Leroy
819 So. 2d 169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co.
692 So. 2d 979 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)