ARIEL SYNDICATE 1901
v.
FOUNTAINBLEAU GARDENS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
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 trial court does not abuse its discretion in allowing an appraisal to proceed on a dual track basis while preserving a party's right to contest coverage.
[1] A trial court has discretion to order dual-track proceedings allowing appraisal to proceed while coverage disputes remain unresolved and all parties' rights to contest co…
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 intelligenceAriel Syndicate 1901 brought an action against Fountainbleau Gardens Condominium Association regarding an insurance matter. The trial court ordered th…
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 Coverage Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d 753, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (finding “[t]he trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the appraisal to go forward on a dual track basis, while preserving all of [appellant]’s rights to contest coverage”); Paradise Plaza Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Reinsurance Corp. of N.Y., 685 So. 2d 937, 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that “the order in which the issues of damages and coverage are to be determined respectively by arbitration and the court should be left within the discretion of the trial judge”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States & The Honorable W. Willard Wirtz v. The Honorable Robert W. Hemphill, 369 F.2d 539 (4th Cir. 1966)…. McMahon, U.S. District Judge, 2 Cir., 299 F. 2d 256; Atlass v. Miner, 7 Cir., 265 F. 2d 312; International Products Corp. v. Koons, 2 Cir., 325 F. 2d 403. Cf. Erie Bank v. U.S. District Court, 10 Cir., 362 F. 2d 539. . Peterson v. Superior Court, 67 Wash. 370, 121 P. 836. . Of course, if the order is within the range of the discretion vested in the District Judge, it is not reviewable on a petition for a writ of mandamus. Chemical and Industrial Corp. v. Druffle, 6 Cir., 301 F. 2d 126.…
Authorities Cited
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- N. Shore Hosp. & Totura & Co. v. Joseph, 685 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)