Caduceus Self Insurance Fund v. Sacred Heart Hospital of Pensacola

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Caduceus Self Insurance Fund v. Sacred Heart Hospital of Pensacola

615 So. 2d 882, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4517, 1993 WL 107053

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1461

StatusPublished

This text of 615 So. 2d 882 (Caduceus Self Insurance Fund v. Sacred Heart Hospital of Pensacola) 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

Caduceus Self Insurance Fund v. Sacred Heart Hospital of Pensacola, 615 So. 2d 882, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4517, 1993 WL 107053 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal we review the trial court’s final order dismissing with prejudice appellant’s complaint sounding in contribution and indemnity. Of the issues raised on appeal, we address only appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s complaint with prejudice, in that appellant has not abused the privilege to amend the complaint. We agree that in amending the complaint but once, appellant has not abused the privilege to amend. See Warner Cable Communications, Inc. v. City of Niceville, 581 So.2d 1352, 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Therefore, we reverse with directions that appellant be permitted to amend the complaint if appellant so desires.

BOOTH, SMITH and MINER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal we review the trial court’s final order dismissing with prejudice appellant’s complaint sounding in contribution and indemnity. Of the issues raised on appeal, we address only appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s complaint with prejudice, in that appellant has not abused the privilege to amend the complaint. We agree that in amending the complaint but once, appellant has not abused the privilege to amend. See Warner Cable Communications, Inc. v. City of Niceville, 581 So.2d 1352, 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Therefore, we reverse with directions that appellant be permitted to amend the complaint if appellant so desires.

BOOTH, SMITH and MINER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 So. 2d 882, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4517, 1993 WL 107053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caduceus-self-insurance-fund-v-sacred-heart-hospital-of-pensacola-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack