Case ID: so2d_614/html/0500-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W.R. GRACE & CO.—CONNECTICUT, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. Garland P. PARLIER, et ux., Respondents.
    No. 79837.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 11, 1993.
    Jonathan C. Hollingshead and Susan B. Collingwood of Fisher, Rushmer, Werren-rath, Keiner, Wack & Dickson, P.A., Orlando, on behalf of W.R. Grace & Co. — Conn.
    James E. Tribble of Blackwell & Walker, P.A., Miami, on behalf of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
    Blaire & Cole, P.A., Coral Gables, and Louise H. McMurray of Louise H. McMur-ray, P.A., Miami, on behalf of Fiberboard Corp., Keene Corp. and Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
    Timothy Clark of the Law Offices of Timothy Clark, Miami, on behalf of U.S. Mineral Products Co.
    Robert A. Hannah and Henry W. Jewett, II of Hannah, Marsee, Beik & Vought, P.A., Orlando, on behalf of Owens-Illinois, Inc.
    Robles & Gonzalez, and Patrice A. Talisman of Paul, Landy, Beiley & Harper, P.A., Miami, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

In Pearlstein v. King, 610 So.2d 445 (Fla.1992), we held that the 120-day rule for serving a defendant in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j) applies to causes of action pending on January 1, 1989. Therefore, we quash Parlier v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 596 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) and direct the district court to remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.’

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur. 
      
       We note that respondents argue that some of the petitioners waived reliance on the 120-day rule by failing to raise the defense in their responsive pleadings or motions. This is an issue which may be resolved upon remand.