State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Howard Dinner, D.C., P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Howard Dinner, D.C., P.A.

72 So. 3d 783, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16145, 2011 WL 4809205

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 2011

DocketNo. 4D11-469

StatusPublished

This text of 72 So. 3d 783 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Howard Dinner, D.C., P.A.) 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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Howard Dinner, D.C., P.A., 72 So. 3d 783, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16145, 2011 WL 4809205 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The county court erroneously compelled a State Farm adjuster who resided and worked in Hillsborough County, and who had not been designated as a corporate representative, to attend a deposition in Broward County. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410(e)(2); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So.2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The circuit court dismissed State Farm’s petition for writ of certiorari.

Because no “miscarriage of justice” has occurred, we deny this petition for second tier certiorari. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Palm Chiropractic Ctr., Inc., 51 So.3d 506, 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (stating that a district court of appeal should grant a second tier petition for writ of certiorari “ ‘only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice’ ”) (emphasis in original) (quoting Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto., Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086, 1092 (Fla.2010)); Gould v. State, 974 So.2d 441, 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (observing that a district court of appeal cannot grant a petition for second tier certiorari where the circuit court applied the incorrect law unless such a “departure from the essential requirements of the law constituted a ‘miscarriage of justice’ ”).

MAY, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The county court erroneously compelled a State Farm adjuster who resided and worked in Hillsborough County, and who had not been designated as a corporate representative, to attend a deposition in Broward County. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410(e)(2); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So.2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The circuit court dismissed State Farm’s petition for writ of certiorari.

Because no “miscarriage of justice” has occurred, we deny this petition for second tier certiorari. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Palm Chiropractic Ctr., Inc., 51 So.3d 506, 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (stating that a district court of appeal should grant a second tier petition for writ of certiorari “ ‘only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice’ ”) (emphasis in original) (quoting Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto., Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086, 1092 (Fla.2010)); Gould v. State, 974 So.2d 441, 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (observing that a district court of appeal cannot grant a petition for second tier certiorari where the circuit court applied the incorrect law unless such a “departure from the essential requirements of the law constituted a ‘miscarriage of justice’ ”).

MAY, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 So. 3d 783, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16145, 2011 WL 4809205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-co-v-howard-dinner-dc-pa-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack