UNIVERSAL X RAYS, CORP., A/A/O DAMARIS BROCHE
v.
INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
A party cannot evade procedural filing requirements by arguing that a trial court abused its discretion in enforcing the plain language of civil procedure rules.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by enforcing the plain language of civil procedure rules requiring timely filing, as such rules are mandatory and designed to…
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“A party cannot evade the requirement to timely file based on a trial court's discretionary choice . . . It is far-fetched to argue a trial court abused its discretion by enforcing the plain language of a rule of civil procedure promulgated to place practitioners and courts on notice of what is required. These rules are not advisory and are meant to provide time limits to raise arguments and present evidence in order to prevent gamesmanship, unfair surprise, and prejudice.”
From State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Advanced X-Ray Analysis, Inc., cited in support of the affirmance
Universal X Rays, Corp., on behalf of Damaris Broche, appealed a summary judgment entered by the County Court for Miami-Dade County in favor of Infini…
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 Insurance Coverage Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 16, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-0886 Lower Tribunal No. 22-10748-SP-05
Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Damaris Broche, Appellant,
vs.
Infinity Auto Insurance Company, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Miesha Darrough, Judge.
Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, P.L., and Paul B. Feltman; Robert
J. Lee, P.A., and Robert J. Lee, for appellant.
Law Offices of Terry M. Torres & Associates, and Robert Phaneuf, for appellee.
Before, LINDSEY, GORDO and GOODEN JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Ottey v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 299 So. 3d 500, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Our standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” (quoting White v. Ferco Motors Corp., 260 So. 3d 388, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)); Betancourt v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 406 So. 3d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a))); Luckman v. Wills, 306 So. 3d 990, 993 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) ("A trial court's evidentiary ruling that excludes an affidavit is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Advanced X-Ray Analysis, Inc., 368 So. 3d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“A party cannot evade the requirement to timely file based on a trial court's discretionary choice . . . It is far-fetched to argue a trial court abused its discretion by enforcing the plain language of a rule of civil procedure promulgated to place practitioners and courts on notice of what is required. These rules are not advisory and are meant to provide time limits to raise arguments and present evidence in order to prevent gamesmanship, unfair surprise, and prejudice.").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- White v. Ferco Motors Corp., 260 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Suzzette Ottey v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 299 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Advanced X-Ray Analysis, Inc., 368 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Luckman v. Wills, 306 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)