Diamond v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford

890 So. 2d 1248, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 233, 2005 WL 94707
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 19, 2005
DocketNo. 3D03-1206
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 890 So. 2d 1248 (Diamond v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford) 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
Diamond v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford, 890 So. 2d 1248, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 233, 2005 WL 94707 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING and MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

The opinion filed October 27, 2004 is withdrawn, and the following is substituted in its place.

We reverse the trial court’s order which struck The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Ct.’s proposal for settlement in an action by the Diamonds under a valuable items policy. See U.S. Security Ins. Co. v. Cahuasqui, 760 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), rev. dismissed, 796 So.2d 532 (Fla.2001)(The offer of judgment statute applies to all civil actions for damages.).

The motion for clarification is denied.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

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

Related

Schmitz v. Schmitz
890 So. 2d 1248 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
890 So. 2d 1248, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 233, 2005 WL 94707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diamond-v-automobile-insurance-co-of-hartford-fladistctapp-2005.