Sunshine State Insurance Co. v. Benjamin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sunshine State Insurance Co. v. Benjamin

100 So. 3d 90, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11232, 2012 WL 2814124

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 11, 2012

DocketNo. 2D11-3446

StatusPublished

This text of 100 So. 3d 90 (Sunshine State Insurance Co. v. Benjamin) 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

Sunshine State Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 100 So. 3d 90, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11232, 2012 WL 2814124 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

CRENSHAW, Judge.

Sunshine State Insurance Company (Sunshine State) petitions this court for certiorari review of the circuit court’s non-final order ruling that section 627.7074, Florida Statutes (2010), is unconstitutional and denying Sunshine State’s motion to compel a neutral evaluation of homeowners Phaneze and Carla Benjamins’ sinkhole claim. As we discuss in greater detail in State Farm Insurance Co. v. Buitrago, 100 So.3d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), we conclude the statute is not unconstitutional, and thus the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by finding section 627.7074 unconstitutional. Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the [91]*91circuit court’s order. The case is hereby remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Petition granted.

WALLACE and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

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

CRENSHAW, Judge.

Sunshine State Insurance Company (Sunshine State) petitions this court for certiorari review of the circuit court’s non-final order ruling that section 627.7074, Florida Statutes (2010), is unconstitutional and denying Sunshine State’s motion to compel a neutral evaluation of homeowners Phaneze and Carla Benjamins’ sinkhole claim. As we discuss in greater detail in State Farm Insurance Co. v. Buitrago, 100 So.3d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), we conclude the statute is not unconstitutional, and thus the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by finding section 627.7074 unconstitutional. Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the [91]*91circuit court’s order. The case is hereby remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Petition granted.

WALLACE and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 3d 90, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11232, 2012 WL 2814124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunshine-state-insurance-co-v-benjamin-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack