Legal Opinion
Crooks v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided August 30, 1995No. 94-2221PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Per curiam
An insured appeals a final order denying his claim for attorney’s fees in a suit to recover “no-fault” insurance benefits from his insurance company. We reverse because we find that the insurance company failed to pay the insured’s medical providers as required by Florida Statutes, Section 627.736(4)(b).
On September 29, 1990, the appellant Michael Crooks (hereinafter “Crooks”) was injured when he was struck by a motor vehicle while riding his bicycle on Miami Beach. At the time of the incident, Crooks had an automobile insurance policy with the appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- SE FISHERIES v. Dept. of Nat. ResourcesSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
- GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. v. GonzalezDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
- Government Employees Ins. Co. v. GraffDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1976
- Dunmore v. Interstate Fire Ins. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
- Powell v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2000
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. KaklamanosSupreme Court of Florida · 2003
- Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2010
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. RodriguezSupreme Court of Florida · 2001
- Warren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2005
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.