WINTER PARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
RANDY HORTON AND FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND, APPELLEES
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from a judgment in a medical malpractice case. It is consolidated with an appeal from an order denying a “motion for satisfaction of judgment.”
We discern no error in any instance. Although appellant perceives a potential problem regarding its exposure to pay more than the statutorily required $100,000 of the total judgment, that problem has yet to become manifest. We cannot solve potential problems or render advisory opinions. Once the trial judge has ruled regarding the respective liabilities for payment of damages and attorneys’ fees then we will review any properly appealed order. The appeals are dismissed for lack of a justiciable issue.
DISMISSED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Ins. Co. & McMerit Constr. Co. v. The Sw. Fla. Ret. Ctr., Inc., 707 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1998)…WELLS, Justice. We have for review Southwest Florida Retirement Center v. Federal Insurance Co., 682 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), which expressly and directly conflicts with School Board of Volusia County v. Fidelity Co. of Maryland, 468 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. In 1981, Southwest Florida Retirement Center, Inc., (Southwest) contracted with McMerit Construction Company (general contractor), n/k/a M…1 / 2
-
Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. OF Hartford v. L.J. Clark Constr. Co., Inc., 579 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…limitations is void. It is well established that a suit on a common law performance bond is subject to the five year limitation period in section 95.-ll(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). School Bd. of Volusia County v. Fidelity Co. of Maryland, 468 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Thus, the argument that the bond’s limitation period validly expands coverage over that provided by section 713.23 is illogical when considered in conjunction with section 95.03 which makes that provision void. In short, to…
-
The Sw. Fla. Ret. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 682 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…xtensive, the limitations period for an action against the surety did not begin to run until discovery of the latent defects constituting the breach of warranty. The trial judge, relying on School Board of Volusia County v. Fidelity Co. of Maryland, 468 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), was persuaded that because section 95.11(2)(b) does not contain a tolling provision for latent defects as does section 95.11(3)(c), relating to actions founded on construction of improvements to real property, appellant’s cause…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence