City of Miami v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty

444 So. 2d 571, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11597
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 31, 1984·No. No. 83-1987·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We treat the motion for summary reversal filed by the appellee, United States Fidelity and Guaranty, as a confession of error and, upon the authority of VanBibber v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 439 So.2d 880 (Fla.1983); Kaminsky v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 443 So.2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Geller v. Kent Insurance Company, 442 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) and Randel v. General Insurance Company, 439 So.2d 986, 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), reverse the order under review and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to reinstate the [572]*572appellee as a party defendant on the appellant’s crossclaim.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

City of Miami v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty, 444 So. 2d 571, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11597 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

444 So. 2d 571 (City of Miami v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Darby v. Sheffer
458 So. 2d 862 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)