Svigilsky v. Amedex Insurance
Svigilsky v. Amedex Insurance
789 So. 2d 545; 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10327; 2001 WL 830678
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Svigilsky v. Amedex Insurance
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed.
Concurring Opinion
(specially concurring).
Although, indeed because the issue is a close one, I agree that the arbitration clause of the insurance policy in question applies to the dispute involved in this case. See Roe v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 533 So.2d 279 (Fla. 1988); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Middleton, 648 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also Cuningham Hamilton & Quiter, P.A. v. B.L. of Miami Inc., 776 So.2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), and cases cited.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.