7 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Creveling v. Government Employees Insurancegreen2 sentences2014Co., 376 Md. 72 , 828 A.2d 229, 244-45 (2003). 2014Co., 376 Md. 72 , 828 A.2d 229, 244-45 (2003). | 2 | 2 |
Hannah v. Eldergreen1 sentence2005See Hannah v. Elder, 545 So.2d 503, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Frito-Lay, Inc.green1 sentence1994Rodriguez v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 600 So.2d 1167, 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversing and remanding for the JCC to make written findings as to whether noncompliance with notice requirement should be excused). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lloyds Underwriters at London v. Keystone Equipment Finance Corp.
green
1 sentence2025Id. (“Generally ‘clauses that are inclusionary or exclusionary, that outline the scope of coverage, or that delineate the dollar amount of liability’ are described as pertaining to coverage, while ‘forfeiture clauses often include provisions such as filing a timely notice of claim and submitting proofs of loss, and are invoked to avoid liability for existing coverage.’” (quoting Creveling v. Gov’t Emps. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Milio v. LEINOFF AND SILVERS, PA
green
1 sentence2010We are not persuaded by the trial court’s reliance on Milio v. Leinoff & Silvers, P.A., 668 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Lawrence v. Eastern Air Lines
green
1 sentence1958After the going down of the mandate in Lawrence v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., supra, the appellant Town filed its answer, alleging among others that the plaintiffs' cause of action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to suits against cities and villages, § 95.24, Fla. Stat. 1957, F.S.A., and by the failure of the plaintiffs to file a timely notice of claim as required by § 42 of the Town's Charter. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.