AARON JOHNS, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF SANFORD AND JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY, INC., APPELLEES
AARON JOHNS, APPELLANT,
CITY OF SANFORD AND JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY, INC., APPELLEES
96 So. 3d 949
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2012)
Caution
Cited by 11 cases
Opinion of the Court
AFFIRMED. See Punsky v. Clay County Sheriff’s Office, 18 So.3d 577, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“[I]f the employer’s medical testimony shows that several non-work related factors or conditions are the cause of a heart attack, and such evidence is accepted and credited by the trier of fact, such testimony could be found sufficient as competent and substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumption [in section 112.18, Florida Statutes,] and establish non-industrial causation”).
DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
LoBELLO v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…at 543-44; Waldrep, 400 So. 2d at 785-86; Clena Invs., 2012 WL 1004851, at *4. If the notice was untimely, then prejudice to the insurer is presumed. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Fla.1985); Soronson v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 96 So. 3d 949, 952-53 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). However, the presumption of prejudice to the insurer “may be rebutted by a showing that the insurer has not been prejudiced by the lack of notice.” Macias, 475 So. 2d at 1218. A determination that the notice was, in fac…
-
Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Farmer, 104 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…reference is made to forfeiture as the consequence of breach, Florida courts have consistently interpreted proof of loss obligations coupled with similar no-action clauses to be conditions precedent. See, e.g., Soronson v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 96 So. 3d 949, 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (interpreting contract with identical language and concluding proof of loss was condition precedent); Starling, 956 So. 2d at 513 (same); cf. Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 300, 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Curran, 135 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 2014)…led, its performance cannot be a condition precedent to suit. However, here, submission to the CME clearly could and should have occurred presuit, independent of Curran’s duty to cooperate during litigation. See Soronson v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 96 So. 3d 949, 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (using a plain language analysis to conclude that an insurance policy’s notice and proof-of-loss requirements were conditions precedent to suit, not cooperation clauses). Because the CME provision is a condition precedent,…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Punsky v. Clay Cnty. Sheriff's Off. & Scibal Ins. Grp., 18 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)