Flaxman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

340 So. 2d 515, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15807
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 7, 1976
Docket76-1206
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 340 So. 2d 515 (Flaxman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company) 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
Flaxman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 340 So. 2d 515, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15807 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

340 So.2d 515 (1976)

Warren FLAXMAN, Appellant,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 76-1206.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 7, 1976.

*516 Koltun & Tobias, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen and William J. Kendrick, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory appeal is from an order setting aside a default and final judgment upon the motion of the defendant. The discretion of the trial court upon such an order is well-established. See North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849 (Fla. 1962); Holiday Ranch, Inc. v. Roudabush, 171 So.2d 558 (Fla.2d DCA 1965); Gacl, Inc. v. Zeger, 276 So.2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). The instant case has the additional factor that the cause had proceeded to final judgment.

The trial judge's exercise of discretion in this case is supported by the fact that the defendant explained the loss of the summons and complaint and tendered an affidavit of good defense. See Renuart-Bailey-Cheely Lumber and Supply Co. v. Hall, 264 So.2d 84 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); and North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849 (Fla. 1962). A further equitable consideration appears from the fact that the plaintiff's attorney was actively in contact with the defendant, relative to the claim, after he had filed suit, and the fact of the filing of the suit was not disclosed to defendant. In addition, the plaintiff, at trial, amended his complaint on the damage issue in order to increase the damages allowable.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Miami-Dade County v. Coral Bay Section C Homeowners Ass'n
979 So. 2d 318 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Miami-Dade County v. CORAL BAY SECTION C
979 So. 2d 318 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Hornblower v. Cobb
932 So. 2d 402 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
BC Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado
405 So. 2d 1345 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Garcia Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Diaz
351 So. 2d 1137 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Bailey v. Deebold
351 So. 2d 355 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
340 So. 2d 515, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flaxman-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-company-fladistctapp-1976.