Salyer v. Gainesville, Dodge, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Salyer v. Gainesville, Dodge, Inc.

448 So. 2d 1190, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12715

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 18, 1984

DocketNo. AR-243

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 448 So. 2d 1190 (Salyer v. Gainesville, Dodge, Inc.) 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

Salyer v. Gainesville, Dodge, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1190, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12715 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

All parties in this appeal have stipulated that this Court’s decision is to be governed by the holdings of the Vanbibber case, decided by the Florida Supreme Court subsequent to the filing of this appeal. Vanbibber v. Publix Supermarket, Inc. and Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 439 So.2d 880 (Fla.1983).

In Vanbibber, the Florida Supreme Court found section 627.7262, Florida Statutes, to be constitutional but applicable only prospectively. See also, Randel v. General Insurance Company, 439 So.2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Because the incident in this cause occurred prior to the effective date of Section 627.7262 (October 1, 1982), prior state law controlled the suit. This prior state law authorized, simultaneously, a suit in tort against a tort-feasor and a claim against that tort-feasor’s insurance company. Shingleton v. Bussy, 223 So.2d 713 (Fla.1969).

Because the incident in the present case occurred prior to the effective date of the statute, a simultaneous suit against both the corporate defendants and their insur-anee carriers must be permitted.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

All parties in this appeal have stipulated that this Court’s decision is to be governed by the holdings of the Vanbibber case, decided by the Florida Supreme Court subsequent to the filing of this appeal. Vanbibber v. Publix Supermarket, Inc. and Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 439 So.2d 880 (Fla.1983).

In Vanbibber, the Florida Supreme Court found section 627.7262, Florida Statutes, to be constitutional but applicable only prospectively. See also, Randel v. General Insurance Company, 439 So.2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Because the incident in this cause occurred prior to the effective date of Section 627.7262 (October 1, 1982), prior state law controlled the suit. This prior state law authorized, simultaneously, a suit in tort against a tort-feasor and a claim against that tort-feasor’s insurance company. Shingleton v. Bussy, 223 So.2d 713 (Fla.1969).

Because the incident in the present case occurred prior to the effective date of the statute, a simultaneous suit against both the corporate defendants and their insur-anee carriers must be permitted.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 So. 2d 1190, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salyer-v-gainesville-dodge-inc-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack