rejection claim in Florida

2013The Court further stated that “the quoted principle originated in a district court of appeal decision applying the substantial, competent evidence standard that was issued prior to this Court’s rejection of that standard in Cloud.” Id. (discussing Cloud, 110 So.2d 669 ).

2013The Court further stated that “the quoted principle originated in a district court of appeal decision applying the substantial, competent evidence standard that was issued prior to this Court’s rejection of that standard in Cloud.” Id. (discussing Cloud, 110 So.2d 669 ).

2011And the court’s decision in Higgins “should in no way be read as a rejection of the principle” that “an insurer’s obligation to defend is determined solely by the claimant’s complaint if suit has been filed.” Id. at 10 .

2004This decision should in no way be as read as a rejection of the principle set forth in National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So.2d 533, 536 (Fla.1977), that "[t]he allegations of the [underlying] complaint govern the duty of the insurer to defend." We approve the explanation of this obligation to defend as clearly explained by Judge Zehmer in Baron Oil Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 470 So.2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

1997See Genden v. Fuller, 648 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1994); State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Zabrani v. Cowart, 506 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Bloom v. McKnight, 502 So.2d 422 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); State v. Dorian, 619 So.2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), quashed, 642 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1994); Williams v. Shapiro, 575 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

1997See Genden v. Fuller, 648 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1994); State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Zabrani v. Cowart, 506 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Bloom v. McKnight, 502 So.2d 422 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); State v. Dorian, 619 So.2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), quashed, 642 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1994); Williams v. Shapiro, 575 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

1997See Genden v. Fuller, 648 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1994); State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Zabrani v. Cowart, 506 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Bloom v. McKnight, 502 So.2d 422 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); State v. Dorian, 619 So.2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), quashed, 642 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1994); Williams v. Shapiro, 575 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

1997See Genden v. Fuller, 648 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1994); State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Zabrani v. Cowart, 506 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Bloom v. McKnight, 502 So.2d 422 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); State v. Dorian, 619 So.2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), quashed, 642 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1994); Williams v. Shapiro, 575 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

1997See Genden v. Fuller, 648 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1994); State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Zabrani v. Cowart, 506 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Bloom v. McKnight, 502 So.2d 422 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); State v. Dorian, 619 So.2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), quashed, 642 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1994); Williams v. Shapiro, 575 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

1997See Genden v. Fuller, 648 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1994); State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Zabrani v. Cowart, 506 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Bloom v. McKnight, 502 So.2d 422 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); State v. Dorian, 619 So.2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), quashed, 642 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1994); Williams v. Shapiro, 575 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

1997See Genden v. Fuller, 648 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1994); State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Zabrani v. Cowart, 506 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); Bloom v. McKnight, 502 So.2d 422 (Fla.1987), overruled, State v. Agee, 622 So.2d 473 (Fla.1993); State v. Dorian, 619 So.2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), quashed, 642 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1994); Williams v. Shapiro, 575 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

1991Servs., 502 So.2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Harris v. Department of Corrections, 486 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). [2] Several of the petitioners seek review of a hearing officer's determination of an intentional food-stamp violation; one of them complains of the rejection of a claim for retroactive medical assistance; another attacks the reduction of benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program for failure to cooperate in obtaining a child-support order; and the last is an inmate who seeks to invalidate the Lake Correctional Institution Orientation Handbook. [3] Section 12

1991Servs., 502 So.2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Harris v. Department of Corrections, 486 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). [2] Several of the petitioners seek review of a hearing officer's determination of an intentional food-stamp violation; one of them complains of the rejection of a claim for retroactive medical assistance; another attacks the reduction of benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program for failure to cooperate in obtaining a child-support order; and the last is an inmate who seeks to invalidate the Lake Correctional Institution Orientation Handbook. [3] Section 12

1991Particularly because, however, the contract must be read against Skuld, both as its drafter and because the provision it invokes seeks to limit the availability of an otherwise appropriate forum, see Granados Quinones v. Swiss Bank Corp., 509 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1987), the contrasting language it did choose requires the rejection of its claim.

1989Kling’s reliance on the “continuous treatment” doctrine is misplaced, given the rejection of that doctrine by the Florida Supreme Court in Kelley v. School Board of Seminole County, 435 So.2d 804 (Fla. 1983).

1989The continuous treatment doctrine is analogous to continuing negotiations, as we held in Brogan v. Mullins, 452 So.2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), petition for review dismissed, 464 So.2d 555 (Fla.1985).

1987See and compare In Re Estate of Sale, 227 So.2d 199 (Fla.1969); In Re Estate of Jeffries, 136 Fla. 410 , 181 So. 833 (1938); Williams v. Estate of Williams, 493 So.2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In Re Estate of Oxford, 372 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Mautner v. Loman, 353 So.2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Turner v. Myers, 332 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

1987See and compare In Re Estate of Sale, 227 So.2d 199 (Fla.1969); In Re Estate of Jeffries, 136 Fla. 410 , 181 So. 833 (1938); Williams v. Estate of Williams, 493 So.2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In Re Estate of Oxford, 372 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Mautner v. Loman, 353 So.2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Turner v. Myers, 332 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

1987See and compare In Re Estate of Sale, 227 So.2d 199 (Fla.1969); In Re Estate of Jeffries, 136 Fla. 410 , 181 So. 833 (1938); Williams v. Estate of Williams, 493 So.2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In Re Estate of Oxford, 372 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Mautner v. Loman, 353 So.2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Turner v. Myers, 332 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

1987See and compare In Re Estate of Sale, 227 So.2d 199 (Fla.1969); In Re Estate of Jeffries, 136 Fla. 410 , 181 So. 833 (1938); Williams v. Estate of Williams, 493 So.2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In Re Estate of Oxford, 372 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Mautner v. Loman, 353 So.2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Turner v. Myers, 332 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

1987See and compare In Re Estate of Sale, 227 So.2d 199 (Fla.1969); In Re Estate of Jeffries, 136 Fla. 410 , 181 So. 833 (1938); Williams v. Estate of Williams, 493 So.2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In Re Estate of Oxford, 372 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Mautner v. Loman, 353 So.2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Turner v. Myers, 332 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

1987See and compare In Re Estate of Sale, 227 So.2d 199 (Fla.1969); In Re Estate of Jeffries, 136 Fla. 410 , 181 So. 833 (1938); Williams v. Estate of Williams, 493 So.2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In Re Estate of Oxford, 372 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Mautner v. Loman, 353 So.2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Turner v. Myers, 332 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

1986The case at bar clearly involves more than a passive failure of an employer in investigating the extent of claimant's disability, or its delay in providing payment for necessary services, once it was on notice of the need for same, cf. Barosy v. Landscape Crane, 418 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), but instead reflects a rejection of a claim for attendant care on the primary ground that the home environment was not the best place where such care should be provided.

1984Implicit in these holdings is a rejection of the rule expressed in Gissen , both in its broader, similar acts, and narrower, particular acts, senses and an adaptation of what we here characterize as the reasonable care in the circumstances rule: a determination based upon the unique facts of each case and an application of the language of the Restatement. [7] V For the foregoing reasons, bound as we are by the supreme court's holding in *275 Gissen but being of the opinion that that holding is not supported by the weight of authority and that a more enlightened rule would better serve the need

1983Collins v. State, 431 So.2d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

1982Pasco County, 353 So.2d at 115 .

1977We granted certiorari to resolve decisional conflicts among Florida appellate decisions on these points. [1] The first point was recently resolved against Roberts and State Farm by our decision in Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1977).