ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
DONALD L. BREGOFF, RESPONDENT

Fla. 4th DCA | 1975-05-09
No. 74-1695
WALDEN, MAGER, and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
312 So. 2d 205 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1975)

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.

Synopsis

The court affirmed a declaratory judgment that an insurer's notice and the insureds' failure to reject an increase in uninsured motorist coverage resulted in the higher coverage limits becoming effective.


Holding

The court held that the insurer's notice and the insureds' failure to reject the increase effectively resulted in the higher uninsured motorist coverage limits becoming effective.


Facts & Procedural History

Allstate Insurance Company issued a notice to its policyholders that uninsured motorist coverage limits would automatically increase to match liabilit…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURTAM.

Upon due consideration of the briefs, oral argument and the record herein we are of the opinion that while an interlocutory order entered in an action at law may in exceptional circumstances be reviewed by certiorari we are satisfied that from the present posture of this case certiorari does not lie. See Taylor v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Fla.App.1961, 131 So. 2d 504. In particular, we are persuaded by the representations made by counsel for the respondent at oral argument agreeing to the deletion of certain allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of his complaint relating to circumstances with petitioner contends gives rise to labor activities over which the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction. With that understanding we need not reach the question of whether the trial court’s order denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss was in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction. See 5 Fla.Jur., Certiorari, sec. 10; see also 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, sections 291-293.

Accordingly, certiorari is denied and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

WALDEN, MAGER, and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw