GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY v. MAURICIO CHIROPRACTIC POINCIANA LLC (2020)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY and Government Employees Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. MAURICIO CHIROPRACTIC POINCIANA, LLC a/a/o Roberto Soto, et al., Respondents.

Case No. 5D19-2315

Decided: January 24, 2020

Peter D. Weinstein, Michael A. Rosenberg, Thomas L. Hunker, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, and Rebecca O'Dell Townsend, Louis Schulman and Scott W. Dutton, of Dutton Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioners. Mark K. Delegal and Tiffany A. Roddenberry, of Holland & Knight, LLP, Tallahassee, Amicus Curiae Brief for Personal Insurance Federation of Florida and American Property Casualty Insurance Association, in support of Petitioners. Douglas H. Stein, of Douglas H. Stein, P.A., Miami, for Respondents. Mac S. Phillips, of Phillips Tadros, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Chad A. Barr, of Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., Altamonte Springs, Amicus Brief for Floridians for Fair Insurance, Inc., in support of Respondents.

DENIED. See Dep't of High. Saf. & Motor Veh. v. Alliston, 813 So. 2d 141, 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“[A]n order that provides a result without a written opinion and therefore cannot act as precedent in future cases ․ will generally not merit certiorari review in the district court, even if the district court might disagree with the result.”).

PER CURIAM.

EDWARDS, HARRIS, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network