State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Exec. Health Servs., Inc., 520 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Exec. Health Servs., Inc., 520 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Nova Casualty Co. v. Waserstein (flsd, 2006-03-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nova Casualty Co. v. Waserstein
S.D. Fla. · 2006 · confidence medium
Co., 498 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (in action by insurer against insured seeking declaration that exclusion in policy permitted insurer to deny coverage, summary judgment for insurer was reversed because “a representation made after issuance of the policy and before the incident giving rise to a claim under the policy can estop the insurer from denying coverage”), aff'd, 520 So.2d 561, 561 (Fla. 1988) (expressly stating that decision below is consistent with McBride).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
v.
EXECUTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. and Wayne O. Montgomery, M.D.
No. 69897.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb 18, 1988.
520 So. 2d 561
Terrence E. Kehoe of Haas, Boehm, Brown, Rigdon, Seacrest & Fischer, P.A., Orlando, for petitioner., Clifford J. Schott of Schott and Dale, P.A., Lakeland, for respondents.
Barkett, Ehrlich, Grimes, Kogan, McDonald, Overton, Shaw.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

We accepted review of Executive Health Services, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 498 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), because of apparent conflict with Six L’s Packing Co. v. Florida Farm Bureau, 276 So.2d 37 (Fla.1973), and because it presented the same issue as the certified question of great public importance in Crown Life Insurance Co. v. McBride, 472 So.2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Having now issued Crown Life Insurance Co. v. McBride, 517 So.2d 660 (Fla.1987), which resolves the issue consistent with the district court decision below and distinguishes the apparent conflict with Six L’s, we determine that we do not have jurisdiction. Therefore, the petition for review is denied.

No motion for rehearing will be accepted. Fla.R.App.P. 9.330(d).

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. MCDONALD, C.J., and EHRLICH, J., dissent.