Diamond v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Diamond v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford

890 So. 2d 1248, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 233, 2005 WL 94707

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 19, 2005·No. No. 3D03-1206·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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The opinion filed October 27, 2004 is withdrawn, and the following is substituted in its place.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

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The opinion filed October 27, 2004 is withdrawn, and the following is substituted in its place.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

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

Pincite

890 So. 2d 1248 (Diamond v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related