examination clause in Florida

2013Id. at 935 ; see also Doe v. Suntrnst Bank, 32 So.3d 133, 139-40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that a party seeking an examination under rule 1.360 must demonstrate that the condition is genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists to order the examination); Williams v. Williams, 550 So.2d 166, 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

2011The court stated that its prior decision in U.S. Security Insurance Co. v. Cimino, 754 So.2d 697 (Fla.2000), correctly held that "attendance at a PIP medical examination is a condition precedent to the receipt of subsequent PIP benefits....” Custer, 62 So.3d at 1099 .

2011The court stated that its prior decision in U.S. Security Insurance Co. v. Cimino, 754 So.2d 697 (Fla.2000), correctly held that "attendance at a PIP medical examination is a condition precedent to the receipt of subsequent PIP benefits...." Custer, 62 So.3d at 1099 .

2011In Lorenzo-Martinez v. Safety Insurance Co., 58 Mass.App.Ct. 359 , 790 N.E.2d 692 (2003), the court considered the examination clause in a case involving a claim for uninsured motorist benefits.

2011In Lorenzo-Martinez v. Safety Insurance Co., 58 Mass.App.Ct. 359 , 790 N.E.2d 692 (2003), the court considered the examination clause in a case involving a claim for uninsured motorist benefits.

2011In Hanover Insurance Co. v. Cape Cod Custom Home Theater, Inc., 72 Mass.App.Ct. 331 , 891 N.E.2d 703 (2008), for example, the court explained why a willful breach of an examination clause precludes recovery: Recently, we had occasion to observe that, as a general rule, an insurer may not disclaim coverage by virtue of an insured's breach of its duty to cooperate absent a showing of prejudice.

2011In Hanover Insurance Co. v. Cape Cod Custom Home Theater, Inc., 72 Mass.App.Ct. 331 , 891 N.E.2d 703 (2008), for example, the court explained why a willful breach of an examination clause precludes recovery: Recently, we had occasion to observe that, as a general rule, an insurer may not disclaim coverage by virtue of an insured's breach of its duty to cooperate absent a showing of prejudice.

2011After the doctor confirmed that he was aware Russell was not wearing a seatbelt, defense counsel asked whether that failure “caus[ed] or contributed substantially to any injuries she may have sustained, the whiplash?” The doctor replied, “Theoretically, it could have made it a bit worse.” As noted earlier, however, the “competent evidence” standard requires evidence that “is not uncertain, speculative, or conjectural.” Smith, 565 So.2d at 754 n. 8.

2011The court stated that its prior decision in U.S. Security Insurance Co. v. Cimino, 754 So.2d 697 (Fla.2000), correctly held that "attendance at a PIP medical examination is a condition precedent to the receipt of subsequent PIP benefits....” Custer, 62 So.3d at 1099 .

2011The court stated that its prior decision in U.S. Security Insurance Co. v. Cimino, 754 So.2d 697 (Fla.2000), correctly held that "attendance at a PIP medical examination is a condition precedent to the receipt of subsequent PIP benefits...." Custer, 62 So.3d at 1099 .

1997Francis, 413 So.2d at 1177 ; Lane v. State, 459 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Walker v. State, 438 So.2d 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

1997Francis, 413 So.2d at 1177 ; Lane v. State, 459 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Walker v. State, 438 So.2d 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

1997Francis, 413 So.2d at 1177 ; Lane v. State, 459 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Walker v. State, 438 So.2d 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

1995Co., 779 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir.1986) (no showing of prejudice necessary when provision is condition precedent); Reliance Ins.

1995Co. v. Wigginton, 964 F.2d 487 (5th Cir.1992) (fire policy was rendered void by insured's *304 failure to submit to examination under oath, regardless of whether insurer was prejudiced where an examination clause was a condition precedent); Bolivar County Bd. of Supervisors v. Forum Ins.

1993Patterson v. Venne, 594 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (defendant, Clay County resident, was not seeking affirmative relief and was thus not required to appear in Dade County).

1991In reversing the original sentence, we said that the prosecutor's examination of the defense's medical expert "was a deliberate attempt to insinuate that appellant had a habit of preying on white women and thus constituted an impermissible appeal to bias and prejudice." Robinson, 520 So.2d at 6 .

1990However, in Smith , as in Dinkins v. State, 244 So.2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), the purpose of the examination was to test the person's ability to be a witness or to establish grounds for impeachment of the witness' testimony.

1980The procedure contemplated under Chapter 917 has been succinctly summarized in the recent decision of Gerardo v. State, 383 So.2d 1122 (Fla.2d DCA 1980): Section 917.14, Florida Statutes (1977), provides for an examination and hearing in the circuit court to determine whether a defendant is a mentally disordered sex offender: *174 (1) If a defendant has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty or no contest to an offense or attempted offense in a current prosecution, the court may defer sentencing and certify him for a hearing and examination in the circuit court to determine whether he is a me

1977Esperti v. State, 276 So.2d 58 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). [4] Moreover, the state availed itself of this provision when it moved for a stay upon the filing of the notice of appeal.

1966Larnel Builders, Inc. v. Martin, Fla., 110 So.2d 649 .