JEFFREY BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., ETC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that entering summary judgment solely on a party's failure to respond to requests for admissions is inappropriate.
[1] A court may not enter summary judgment solely on the basis of a party's failure to respond to requests for admissions.
[2] A party's failure to file discovery responses with the court, even if served on opposing counsel, may be grounds for sanctions or adverse inferences, but not necessarily…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff, Travelers, sued defendant, Brown, for damages from a car accident. Travelers moved for summary judgment, arguing Brown failed to respond to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Requests For Admissions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Brown appeals from the lower court’s final summary judgment entered in favor of Travelers Indemnity Co. (Travelers).
Brown was in an accident with a motor vehicle owned by J.W. Pennie and operated by Ella Pennie. Travelers, their sub-rogee, filed a complaint for $25,000 in damages alleging that Brown negligently operated his vehicle. Brown filed a pro se answer, along with an accident report, diagram and explanation.
In September 1996, Travelers propounded interrogatories.
On January 15, 1997, the trial court entered an order compelling Brown to respond to the outstanding discovery request.
On January 22, 1997, Brown allegedly answered the interrogatories and executed a certificate of service on Travelers’ counsel, but failed to file a copy with the court.
On January 29, 1997, Brown filed a pro se Answer and Demand for Jury Trial, stating: “Defendant denies each and every paragraph and demands strict proof.”
On June 6, 1997, Travelers filed a request for admissions.
On September 30, 1997, Travelers moved for summary judgment, alleging that there were no genuine issues of material fact as Brown had failed to respond to the requests, which were deemed admitted pursuant to rule 1.370, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The court initially denied the motion for failure to provide Brown with proper notice of the hearing, but on November 21, 1997, the trial court entered an order granting final summary judgment, awarding Travelers $25,000.00 plus $196.00 costs and interest. This was error. In Stembridge v. Mintz, 652 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), this Court concluded that entry of summary judgment based solely on the appellant’s failure to respond to requests for admissions was inappropriate. See also Ruiz v. De Varona, 25 Fla.
L. Weekly D197, - So. 2d -, 2000 WL 36222 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan.19, 2000); Sher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 638, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
The final summary judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miles v. Robinson, 803 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…eases from the third district. Describing the holding of an earlier decision, Brown v. Travelers Indemnity Co., states that “entry of summary judgment based solely on the appellant’s failure to respond to requests for admissions was inappropriate.” 755 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Examination of the eases cited in Brown reveals that they involved record evidence contrary to requests for admission that had been deemed admitted. For example, in Stembridge v. Mintz, the record was “replete with evidence cont…
-
Mahmoud S. Mahmoud and Mizhar Mahmoud v. King, 824 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…o file a timely response.” [c.o.]); Stembridge v. Mintz, 652 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“entry of summary judgment based solely on Stembridge’s failure to respond to requests for admissions was inappropriate.”); Brown v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 755 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2000) (entry of summary judgment based solely on failure to respond to requests for admissions is inappropriate); and Ruiz v. De Varona, 785 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“dismissal based solely on the failure to timely answer a reque…
-
Basil Usiabulu v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 992 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…SALTER, J. Basil Usiabulu, pro se, appeals a final summary judgment in favor of Progressive Express Insurance Company. We reverse. See Brown v. Traveler’s Indem. Co., 755 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).1 Usiabulu’s pro se “statement of defense” filed and served in response to Progres [*374] sive’s subrogation claim raised a number of facially genuine and material issues of fact. See Martinez v. Fraxedas, 678 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Mort Sher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Stembridge v. Mintz, 652 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Ruiz v. DE Varona, 785 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)