From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tristar v. Arch Specialty

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jan 26, 2007
215 F. App'x 879 (11th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-13989, Non-Argument Calendar.

January 26, 2007.

David J. Pettinato, Merlin Law Group, PA, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Cecelia B. Skeen, Butler, Pappas, Weihmuller, Katz, Craig, LLP, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 05-00098-CV-ORL-31-DAB.

Before BLACK, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.


Tristar Lodging, Inc. ("Tristar") appeals a judgment entered for Arch Specialty Insurance Co. ("Arch"). Tristar contends that the magistrate judge erred in disposing of the case without a jury trial, in refusing to enter a judgment for Tristar confirming an appraisers' award, and in denying Tristar an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

We find no reversible error. Tristar waived any right it had to a jury trial. (R.6-79 at 2; R.12-101 at 3.) And, we find no error in the magistrate judge's finding that "there is no evidence in this record to support . . . a conclusion" that Arch "failed to timely pay all insurance proceeds due and owing." (R.7-99 at 14.) (quotation omitted.) Because there was "no showing that the insurer failed to timely pay claims properly made and substantiated, sufficient to warrant the suit," Tristar was not entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to § 627.428 Fla. Stat. (R.7-99 at 18.) And, Tristar was not entitled to a judgment affirming the appraisal for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's order. (R.7-99 at 19-20.)

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Tristar v. Arch Specialty

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jan 26, 2007
215 F. App'x 879 (11th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Tristar v. Arch Specialty

Case Details

Full title:TRISTAR LODGING, INC., d.b.a. Hampton Inn, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCH…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Jan 26, 2007

Citations

215 F. App'x 879 (11th Cir. 2007)

Citing Cases

Zainulabeddin v. Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trs.

Motions for reconsideration of orders are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling…

United States v. Shire Regenerative Med., Inc.

Motions for reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)…