29 Fla. L. Weekly S787c
896 So. 2d 665
BARRY BERGES, Petitioner, vs. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC01-2846. December 16, 2004. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Direct Conflict. Second District – Case Nos. 2D99-5014 AND 2D00-1972 Consolidated (Hillsborough County). Counsel: Louis K. Rosenbloum, Pensacola, Robert J. Mayes, Gulf Breeze, Michael S. Rywant of Rywant, Alvarez, Jones, Russo and Guyton, P.A., Tampa, and Lefferts L. Mabie, III, Tampa, for Petitioner. Tracy Raffles Gunn, of Fowler, White, Boggs and Banker, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent. Philip M. Burlington of Caruso, Burlington, Bohn and Campiani, P.A., West Palm Beach on behalf of Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers; Stephen E. Day and Rhonda B. Boggess, of Taylor, Day and Currie Attorneys at Law, Jacksonville, on behalf of Florida Defense Lawyers’ Association; and James Kaplan, Miami, and David M. Homes and Jeremy A. Stephenson, Chicago, Illinois of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman and Dicker, LLP on behalf of National Association of Independent Insurers, as Amici Curiae.CORRECTED OPINION[Original Opinion at 29 Fla. L. Weekly S679a]
Editor’s note. At 29 Fla. L. Weekly S684, in the second paragraph in Part C of the opinion, the second sentence is corrected by substituting the word “insurer” for “insured.” The sentence now reads as follows: “For example, as noted by Justice Cantero in his dissent, in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Zebrowski, 706 So. 2d 275, 277 (Fla. 1997), this Court concluded that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer was proper because, under section 624.155, Florida Statutes (1995), the insurance carrier did not owe a duty to the third-party claimant in the absence of an excess judgment as a matter of law.”
Counsel for Respondent is corrected.
