Rosemurgy v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosemurgy v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

673 So. 2d 989, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5513, 1996 WL 280023

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 29, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1913

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 673 So. 2d 989 (Rosemurgy v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.) 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

Rosemurgy v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 673 So. 2d 989, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5513, 1996 WL 280023 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a trial court order dismissing his amended complaint and directing the parties to appraisal pursuant to an appraisal provision in State Farm’s insurance policy. We affirm and align ourselves with the reasoning expressed by the first district in Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Desalvo, 666 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Accordingly, we certify conflict with State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Liceo, 649 So.2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. granted, 662 So.2d 933 (Fla.1995), Gables Court Professional Centre, Inc. v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 642 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. dismissed, 650 So.2d 990 (Fla.1994), Robles v. Harco National Insurance Co., 669 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), rev. granted, 667 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1996), and American Reliance Insurance Co. v. Village Homes at Country Walk, 632 So.2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 640 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1994).

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, C.J., and WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a trial court order dismissing his amended complaint and directing the parties to appraisal pursuant to an appraisal provision in State Farm’s insurance policy. We affirm and align ourselves with the reasoning expressed by the first district in Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Desalvo, 666 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Accordingly, we certify conflict with State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Liceo, 649 So.2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. granted, 662 So.2d 933 (Fla.1995), Gables Court Professional Centre, Inc. v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 642 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. dismissed, 650 So.2d 990 (Fla.1994), Robles v. Harco National Insurance Co., 669 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), rev. granted, 667 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1996), and American Reliance Insurance Co. v. Village Homes at Country Walk, 632 So.2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 640 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1994).

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, C.J., and WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 So. 2d 989, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5513, 1996 WL 280023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosemurgy-v-state-farm-fire-casualty-co-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack