T.D.S. INCORPORATED, D/B/A LORD & LADY RESTAURANT, THOMAS STARR, AND DOROTHY STARR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
T.D.S. INCORPORATED, D/B/A LORD & LADY RESTAURANT, THOMAS STARR, AND DOROTHY STARR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
769 F.2d 1485
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1985)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 36 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
On Petition for Panel Rehearing the defendant correctly notes that when the panel conditionally remitted plaintiffs’ special compensatory damages award to $225,000, the panel did not take into consideration the $100,000 in insurance proceeds awarded to plaintiffs for loss of business, personal property and leasehold improvements. After reviewing the record, we agree with the defendant that Mrs. Starr’s estimation of the value of the business in January, 1980, was based in part on the value of the property and improvements covered under the insurance policy. The special compensatory damages award is accordingly reduced to $125,000 to reflect the plaintiffs’ recovery on the insurance policy.
Except as noted above, the Petition for Rehearing addressed to the panel is denied. No member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Corry v. Meggs, 498 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ntification in the absence of other factors. Id. at 630. . See United States v. (Under Seal), 774 F. 2d 624 (4th Cir.1985), and United States v. Hodge and Zweig, 548 F. 2d 1347 (9th Cir.1977). . See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation (Harvey), 769 F. 2d 1485 (11th Cir.1985); In re Witness-Attorney Before Grand Jury No. 83-1, 613 F.Supp. 394 (D.C.Fla.1984); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Jones), 517 F. 2d 666 (5th Cir.1975); and Baird v. Koemer, 279 F. 2d 623 (9th Cir.1960). . In the case of In re Grand…
-
Home Ins. Co. v. Owens, 573 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…plegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). In accord with our conclusion, we concur with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In T.D.S. Inc. v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 760 F. 2d 1520 (11th Cir.1985), rehearing denied, 769 F. 2d 1485 (11th Cir.1985), a bad faith case, the court held that the insurance company’s litigation conduct was admissible, relevant evidence. See also Norman v. American National Fire Insurance Co., 198 Ill.App.3d 269, 144 Ill.Dec. 568, 555 N.E. 2d 1087 (199…
-
Calzon v. Cap. Bank, 689 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…rev. denied, 506 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1987). The privilege clearly provides such Fifth Amendment protections. Sepler v. State, 191 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 517 F. 2d 666 (5th Cir.1975); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 769 F. 2d 1485 (11th Cir.1985). It is the duty of this court to ensure that those protections are held inviolate. We therefore must quash the order and direct the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection to prevent any violation of the privilege. This court…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence