Edgington v. Ari Mutual Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Edgington v. Ari Mutual Insurance

728 So. 2d 351, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3107, 1999 WL 140583

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 17, 1999·No. No. 98-1371·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the dismissal of plaintiffs complaint for failure to serve defendant within the 120-day period required under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(i). The record reflects that plaintiff demonstrated “good cause” for failure to serve defendant. See Hernandez v. Page, 580 So.2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In this case, as in Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 451, 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), plaintiff was “justified in believing that [defendant] had acquiesced in the proposal that [defendant] not be served until ‘all reasonable settlement opportunities ha[d] been explored.’ ”

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the dismissal of plaintiffs complaint for failure to serve defendant within the 120-day period required under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(i). The record reflects that plaintiff demonstrated “good cause” for failure to serve defendant. See Hernandez v. Page, 580 So.2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In this case, as in Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 451, 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), plaintiff was “justified in believing that [defendant] had acquiesced in the proposal that [defendant] not be served until ‘all reasonable settlement opportunities ha[d] been explored.’ ”

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Edgington v. Ari Mutual Insurance, 728 So. 2d 351, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3107, 1999 WL 140583 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

728 So. 2d 351 (Edgington v. Ari Mutual Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related