30 Fla. L. Weekly D235b
Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Error to strike insurer’s proposal for settlement in action under valuable items policy
KEITH DIAMOND and DEBORAH DIAMOND, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, vs. THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CT., et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants. 3rd District. Case No. 3D03-1206. L.T. Case No. 99-20328. Opinion filed January 19, 2005. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Margarita Esquiroz, Judge. Counsel: Ginsberg & Schwartz and Arnold R. Ginsberg; Simon & Dondero, for appellants/cross-appellees. Hinshaw & Culbertson and Gina Caruso Albanese and Andrew Grigsby and Marissa I. Delinks (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellees/cross-appellants.
(Before GREEN, FLETCHER, and WELLS, JJ.)ON MOTION FOR REHEARINGand MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION[Original Opinion at 29 Fla. L. Weekly D2412a]
(PER CURIAM.) The opinion filed October 27, 2004 is withdrawn, and the following is substituted in its place.
We reverse the trial court’s order which struck The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Ct.’s proposal for settlement in an action by the Diamonds under a valuable items policy. See U.S. Security Ins. Co. v. Cahuasqui, 760 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), rev. dismissed, 796 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2001)(The offer of judgment statute applies to all civil actions for damages.).
The motion for clarification is denied.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
