26 Fla. L. Weekly D725b

Insurance — Health — Class actions — Trial court did not abuse discretion in certifying class in action alleging that insurer breached identical insurance contract provisions in non-renewal of policies

AMEDEX INSURANCE CO., and U.S.A. MEDICAL SERVICES CORP., Appellants, v. VIOLETA SOBRADO ROTHE, through LAURA COLLADO, as the Administratrix of the Estate of Violeta Sobrado Rothe, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D00-2064. L.T. Case No. 99-17626. Opinion filed March 14, 2001. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Herbert Stettin, Judge. Counsel: Hunton & Williams and Vance E. Salter and D. Bruce Hoffman; Alan J. Leifer, for appellants. Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin and Jason S. Mazer; Abraham Stern, for appellees.

(Before GREEN, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.)

(SHEVIN, Judge.) Amedex Insurance Co. and U.S.A. Medical Services Corp. [collectively “Amedex”] appeal a non-final order certifying a class in an action by Costa Rica residents whose health insurance policies were non-renewed. The class action seeks redress for Amedex’s alleged breach of identical insurance contract provisions as to policy renewability. We reject Amedex’s contention that there is a conflict of interests between the class representatives and the absent class members or that the class was wrongly certified under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b). A thorough review of the record and the case law demonstrates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. See Shoma Dev. Co. v. Vazquez, 749 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Oce Printing Sys. USA, Inc. v. Mailers Data Servs., Inc., 760 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Sys. I, Ltd., 694 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Labora, 670 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc. , 641 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1995). Cf. Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 418 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1983). Accordingly, we affirm the order.

Affirmed.