American Coastal Insurance Company v. Patios West One Condominium Association, Inc.
The Florida Supreme Court initially accepted discretionary conflict jurisdiction to review the Third DCA's decision in a condominium association versus insurer dispute, Patios West One Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. American Coastal Insurance Co., 388 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). After oral argument, the Court exercised its discretion to discharge jurisdiction and dismissed the review proceeding without reaching the merits of the conflict. As a result, the Third DCA's decision remains the controlling authority, and the certified conflict between districts on the underlying insurance issue remains unresolved at the Supreme Court level.
Key facts
- American Coastal Insurance Company insured Patios West One Condominium Association, Inc., leading to a coverage dispute that was litigated through Miami-Dade County circuit court (3D2022-1895).
- The Third District Court of Appeal issued a decision at 388 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) that American Coastal contended stood in express and direct conflict with decisions from other districts.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Holdings
- The Florida Supreme Court retains discretion to discharge previously accepted conflict jurisdiction at any stage, including after oral argument, without adjudicating the underlying conflict.
- +1 more holding with a free trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.