Richardson v. Plantation General Hospital

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Richardson v. Plantation General Hospital

976 So. 2d 649, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 3449, 2008 WL 649576

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 2008

DocketNo. 4D07-2032

StatusPublished

This text of 976 So. 2d 649 (Richardson v. Plantation General Hospital) 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

Richardson v. Plantation General Hospital, 976 So. 2d 649, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 3449, 2008 WL 649576 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

DAMOORGIAN, J.

Allon and Evelin Richardson appeal from summary judgment granted in favor of Plantation General Hospital. In its motion, the hospital argued that the language of a general release between appellants [650]*650and a joint tortfeasor also released the hospital. The record before the trial court unequivocally established by unrebutted evidence that the release and addendum do not and were never intended to release the hospital. Smith v. Shelton, 970 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (construction of a contract is an issue of law subject to de novo review). Therefore, trial court improperly granted Plantation General’s motion for summary judgment. Albelo v. S. Bell, 682 So.2d 1126, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We therefore reverse.

Reversed.

KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

DAMOORGIAN, J.

Allon and Evelin Richardson appeal from summary judgment granted in favor of Plantation General Hospital. In its motion, the hospital argued that the language of a general release between appellants [650]*650and a joint tortfeasor also released the hospital. The record before the trial court unequivocally established by unrebutted evidence that the release and addendum do not and were never intended to release the hospital. Smith v. Shelton, 970 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (construction of a contract is an issue of law subject to de novo review). Therefore, trial court improperly granted Plantation General’s motion for summary judgment. Albelo v. S. Bell, 682 So.2d 1126, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We therefore reverse.

Reversed.

KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

976 So. 2d 649, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 3449, 2008 WL 649576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-plantation-general-hospital-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack