STAPLES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND FARMER ALLIANCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, HARLEY WORTHINGTON, L. E. LOVE ROOFING COMPANY, THE YORKSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, ST. PAUL-MERCURY INDEMNITY COMPANY AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
STAPLES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND FARMER ALLIANCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, HARLEY WORTHINGTON, L. E. LOVE ROOFING COMPANY, THE YORKSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, ST. PAUL-MERCURY INDEMNITY COMPANY AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
179 So. 2d 346
Florida Supreme Court (1965)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date May S, 1965.
We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.
Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads its to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition is therefore denied.
The petition of Harley Worthington, respondent, for attorneys’ fees in this Court is denied.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, Acting C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL,. JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlyle S. Fabal and Nancy G. Fabal v. Fla. Keys Mem'l Hosp., 452 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…tunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities, to make a timely investigation, to negotiate with claimants, and to prevent fraud and collusion upon it. Cf. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Mills, 171 So. 2d 190, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 179 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1965) (rights of insurer). The insurer’s right to notice and an opportunity to defend a claim is a common feature in a contract of insurance, from which does not necessarily follow a right to be insulated from judgment by virtue of a statute of…
-
Quintana v. The Honorable Frederick N. Barad, 528 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…d. Thus, the insurer had an opportunity "to evaluate its rights and liability, ... to make a timely investigation, and to prevent fraud and imposition on it.” Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Mills, 171 So. 2d 190, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 179 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1965); see Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Harris, 197 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). . We note that where the Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund is concerned, a person filing a claim against a covered health provider must name the…
-
City Mgmt. Grp. Corp. v. Am. Reliance Ins. Co., 528 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…e Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Waldrep, 400 So. 2d 782, 785-86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Deese v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 205 So. 2d 328, 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Mills, 171 So. 2d 190, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 179 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1965); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ranson, 121 So. 2d 175, 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); and (d) this being so, a summary judgment for the insurer herein was entirely proper. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966). Affirmed.…