Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

392 So. 2d 267, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18632

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1980

DocketNo. 79-125

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 392 So. 2d 267 (Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) 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

Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 392 So. 2d 267, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18632 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The summary final judgment entered herein is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, on the authority of State Farm Insurance Company v. Bergman, 387 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1980).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, C. J., ORFINGER, J., and EVANS, VERNON W., Associate Judge, concur.

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Appellees request that we clarify the brief opinion filed herein by expressly pointing out the conflict between this decision and cases decided by other appellate courts. Because there is such conflict and we do not intend to preclude further review of this decision, we clarify our earlier opinion by noting that the decision sub judice, by relying on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Bergman, 387 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), expressly conflicts with: Carter v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 377 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Co. v. Andrews, 369 So.2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Ilmonen, 360 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

The motion for clarification is granted, and as clarified herein, we adhere to our original opinion.

DAUKSCH, C. J., ORFINGER, J., and EVANS, VERNON W., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The summary final judgment entered herein is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, on the authority of State Farm Insurance Company v. Bergman, 387 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1980).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, C. J., ORFINGER, J., and EVANS, VERNON W., Associate Judge, concur.

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Appellees request that we clarify the brief opinion filed herein by expressly pointing out the conflict between this decision and cases decided by other appellate courts. Because there is such conflict and we do not intend to preclude further review of this decision, we clarify our earlier opinion by noting that the decision sub judice, by relying on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Bergman, 387 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), expressly conflicts with: Carter v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 377 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Co. v. Andrews, 369 So.2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Ilmonen, 360 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

The motion for clarification is granted, and as clarified herein, we adhere to our original opinion.

DAUKSCH, C. J., ORFINGER, J., and EVANS, VERNON W., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 So. 2d 267, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack