Industrial Video Technologies, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

47 So. 3d 969, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18494
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 1, 2010·No. No. 4D09-672·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Travelers acknowledges that the circuit court, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a), should have reissued its order denying the appellant’s motion for rehearing so that the appellant could pursue a timely appeal of the circuit court’s final order of dismissal and the court’s order denying the appellant’s motion for rehearing. We therefore treat as timely the appellant’s appeal of those two orders. Having considered the merits of the appeal of those two orders, we affirm the orders without further comment.

Affirmed.

MAY, DAMOORGIAN, and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

Industrial Video Technologies, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 47 So. 3d 969, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18494 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

47 So. 3d 969 (Industrial Video Technologies, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

INDUSTRIAL VIDEO TECH. v. Travelers Indem.
47 So. 3d 969 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)