UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
v.
MILLENNIUM RADIOLOGY, LLC, ETC.,
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.
Collateral estoppel does not apply when a party's identity changes from case to case based on different assignors, as the identity element of collateral estoppel is not satisfied.
[1] The identity element of collateral estoppel is not satisfied when a defendant's legal identity varies across multiple cases based on different assignors, preventing appli…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Millennium's 'identity' is not the same in each of these cases against United Auto; Millennium draws its identity from its assignor from case to case. The identity element of collateral estoppel, therefore, is not satisfied.”
Court's explanation for why collateral estoppel doctrine does not apply
United Automobile Insurance Company sought to apply collateral estoppel to challenge the reasonableness of a diagnostic test performed by Millennium R…
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 Accord And Satisfaction cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 17, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1779 Lower Tribunal No. 12-15166 SP ________________
United Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant,
vs.
Millennium Radiology, LLC, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Natalie Moore, Judge.
Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.
David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines); Marks & Fleischer, P.A., and Gary Marks (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES, and HENDON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
United Automobile Insurance Company (“United Auto”) appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court after entry of summary judgment on the reasonableness of a diagnostic test based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We reverse and remand consistent with our recent decision in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 337 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Millennium's ‘identity’ is not the same in each of these cases against United Auto; Millennium draws its identity from its assignor from case to case. The identity element of collateral estoppel, therefore, is not satisfied.”). In light of our decision, we decline to address United Auto’s second issue on appeal regarding accord and satisfaction since the summary judgment order entered thereon now becomes a non-final, non-appealable order. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.