Gonzalez v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gonzalez v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY

65 So. 3d 608, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11366, 2011 WL 2848619

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 20, 2011

Docket3D10-2269

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 65 So. 3d 608 (Gonzalez v. STATE FARM FLORIDA 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

Gonzalez v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, 65 So. 3d 608, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11366, 2011 WL 2848619 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The summary judgment entered below for the insurer on the ground that the insured had failed to comply "with the pre-suit requirements of the policy that, among other things, she provide a satisfactory proof of loss and submit to an examination under oath, is affirmed. See Edwards v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 64 So.3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein. In particular, we find no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of insured’s request to “abate” the action, which was first made almost five years after the loss and only in the face of an imminent ruling against her at the hearing on the carrier’s motion for summary judgment. See Edwards, 64 So.3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Drummond, 970 So.2d 456, 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Starling v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 956 So.2d 511, 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So.2d 300, 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Stringer v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 622 So.2d 145, 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The summary judgment entered below for the insurer on the ground that the insured had failed to comply "with the pre-suit requirements of the policy that, among other things, she provide a satisfactory proof of loss and submit to an examination under oath, is affirmed. See Edwards v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 64 So.3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein. In particular, we find no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of insured’s request to “abate” the action, which was first made almost five years after the loss and only in the face of an imminent ruling against her at the hearing on the carrier’s motion for summary judgment. See Edwards, 64 So.3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Drummond, 970 So.2d 456, 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Starling v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 956 So.2d 511, 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So.2d 300, 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Stringer v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 622 So.2d 145, 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 So. 3d 608, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11366, 2011 WL 2848619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-state-farm-florida-insurance-company-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack