Filed: Oct. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 18, 2017. _ No. 3D17-388 Lower Tribunal No. 15-14701 _ Marlene Gallardo, Appellant, vs. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto, Judge. Mario Serralta & Associates and Mario Serralta, for appellant. Methe & Rockenbach and Kara Berard Rockenbach (West Palm Beach), for appellee. Before LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM. Marlene Gallardo appea
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 18, 2017. _ No. 3D17-388 Lower Tribunal No. 15-14701 _ Marlene Gallardo, Appellant, vs. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto, Judge. Mario Serralta & Associates and Mario Serralta, for appellant. Methe & Rockenbach and Kara Berard Rockenbach (West Palm Beach), for appellee. Before LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM. Marlene Gallardo appeal..
More
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 18, 2017.
________________
No. 3D17-388
Lower Tribunal No. 15-14701
________________
Marlene Gallardo,
Appellant,
vs.
Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto,
Judge.
Mario Serralta & Associates and Mario Serralta, for appellant.
Methe & Rockenbach and Kara Berard Rockenbach (West Palm Beach), for
appellee.
Before LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Marlene Gallardo appeals the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment
in favor of appellee, Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company.
Appellee properly and commendably concedes error in light of this court’s
recent decisions Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., No. 3D16-1861 (Fla. 3d
DCA Aug. 30, 2017) and Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 42 Fla. L. Weekly
D1565 (Fla. 3d DCA July 12, 2017), each of which was issued after the trial
court’s entry of judgment in the instant case.
Given appellee’s concession of error, and upon our own review of the record
in this case, genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute and we therefore
reverse the final summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
2