JEAN ROBERT GAETAN, PETITIONER,
v.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, RESPONDENT; SHIRLEY SCHWARTZ, ETC., PETITIONER, V. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT; DANILO GARRIDO, PETITIONER, V. VICTORIA FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court consolidated three insurance coverage cases and quashed the lower court decisions, remanding them for reconsideration in light of the Court's decision in Malu v. Security National Insurance Co., which clarified the proper legal standard for insurance coverage disputes.
The Court granted the petitions for review, quashed the three lower court decisions, and remanded the cases for reconsideration in light of the Court's decision in Malu v. Security National Insurance Co., which the Court had recently approved.
[1] Decisions of the District Courts of Appeal that cite to a case pending review in the Florida Supreme Court are subject to review by the Supreme Court.
[2] The Florida Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of the District Courts of Appeal that certify conflict with prior decisions of the Supreme Court.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This Court recently approved Hunter and quashed both Malu and Padilla.”
Establishes the legal framework the Court is applying and clarifies that prior appellate decisions relied upon by the lower courts have been invalidated.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree separate cases involving insurance coverage disputes reached the Florida Supreme Court on review. Gaetan involved GEICO Indemnity Company, Schwa…
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 Certification Of Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Gaetan v. GEICO Indemnity Co., 854 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), and Schwartz v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 877 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), both of which cite to a case that was pending review in this Court (Malu v. Security National Insurance Co., 848 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), review granted, 870 So. 2d 822 (Fla.2004)). We also have for review Garrido v. Victoria Fire & Casualty Co., 889 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), which likewise cites to a related case that was pending review in this Court (Padilla v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 870 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), review granted, 870 So. 2d 822 (Fla.2004)), and certifies conflict with Hunter v. Allstate Insurance Co., 498 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981). We consolidate Gaetan, Schwartz, and Garrido for purposes of this opinion.
This Court recently approved Hunter and quashed both Malu and Padilla. See Malu v. Sec. Nat’l Ins. Co., 898 So. 2d 69 (Fla.2005). Accordingly, and upon review of the parties’ various responses or lack thereof to this Court’s orders to show cause that were issued on May 5, 2005, in Gaetan, Schwartz, and Garrido, the Court has determined that it should accept jurisdiction in those three cases. It is thus ordered that the petitions for review in Gaetan, Schwartz, and Garrido are granted; that those three decisions are quashed; and that those matters are remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decision in Malu. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by this Court.
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Danilo Garrido v. Victoria Fire & Cas. Co., 917 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. We revisit this case pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate in Gaetan v. GEICO Indemnity Co., 911 So. 2d 94 (Fla.2005). Gaetan quashed our earlier decision, Garrido v. Victoria Fire & Casualty Co., 889 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), and remanded the cause to us for further proceedings in light of Malu v. Security National Insurance Co., 898 So. 2d 69 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Malu v. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co., 898 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2005)
- Hunter v. Allstate Ins. Co., 498 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Malu v. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co., 848 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Padilla v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. & Urban Ins. Co. of Pa., 870 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Danilo Garrido v. Victoria Fire & Cas. Co., 889 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Gaetan v. GEICO Indem. Co., 854 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Schwartz v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 877 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- K.C. v. State, 877 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)