Curtin v. Hartford Insurance Group

677 So. 2d 1002, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8669, 1996 WL 457227
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 14, 1996
DocketNo. 95-0923
StatusPublished

This text of 677 So. 2d 1002 (Curtin v. Hartford Insurance Group) 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
Curtin v. Hartford Insurance Group, 677 So. 2d 1002, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8669, 1996 WL 457227 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

FARMER, Judge.

We reverse the summary judgment in this case upon a conclusion that a deposition on file demonstrated triable issues of fact. Moreover, the record establishes that the opponent of the motion had not completed discovery, especially a deposition of an employee of the moving party which had been rescheduled at the request of the movant for a day after the hearing on the motion. In this latter regard, we find this case indistinguishable from our recent decision in Lubarsky v. Sweden House Properties of Boca Raton Inc., 673 So.2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

REVERSED.

KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lubarsky v. SWEDEN HOUSE PROPERTIES
673 So. 2d 975 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
677 So. 2d 1002, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8669, 1996 WL 457227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtin-v-hartford-insurance-group-fladistctapp-1996.