Title: INTERNATIONAL PATROL, ETC. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co.

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

419 So. 2d 323 (1982)
INTERNATIONAL PATROL AND DETECTIVE AGENCY COMPANY, INC., Petitioner,
v.
AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, et al., Respondents.
No. 60525.

Supreme Court of Florida.
August 26, 1982.
Richard M. Goldstein and Paul H. Amundsen of Peeples, Earl, Moore & Blank, Miami, for petitioner.
Richard Smoak of Isler, Brown, Smoak, Harrison & Nabors, Panama City, for Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
Edwin H. Underwood and Donald D. Gillis of Underwood, Gillis, Karcher, Reinert & Valle, Miami, for New Hampshire Ins. Co.
*324 James E. Cobb and Harris Brown of Mathews, Osborne, McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb, Jacksonville, for respondents.
ADKINS, Justice.
We have for review a decision by the First District Court of Appeal (International Patrol and Detective Agency, Inc., v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company; New Hampshire Insurance Company; National Council on Compensation Insurance, 396 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)), which is certified to be in direct conflict with a decision of another District Court of Appeal. Paul v. Allstate Insurance Co., 380 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
We approve the ruling by the First District Court of Appeal and adopt the reasoning therein as our own.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
ALDERMAN, C.J., concurs specially with an opinion, with which BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
ALDERMAN, Chief Justice, concurring specially.
This case was certified to us by the First District as being in conflict with another decision. We accepted jurisdiction because the First District's holding in the present case that costs for copies of depositions were properly taxed against International Patrol expressly and directly conflicts with the Second District's holding in Paul v. Allstate Insurance Co., 380 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), that costs for copies of depositions may not be taxed in any case.
In our present decision, we agree with the First District's decision on this point and approve its rationale. The First District agreed with the reasoning of the Fourth District on this issue and said:
International Patrol and Detective Agency, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 396 So. 2d 774, 776-77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
In the exercise of our discretion, we have not chosen to address or resolve the other issues posed by petitioner. There is no reason to permit petitioner a second appeal on these other issues. See Sanchez v. Wimpey, 409 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1982).
BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, Justice, concurring specially.
I concur with the majority opinion of Justice Adkins and the special concurring opinion of Justice Alderman. In exercising their discretion to determine the amount of costs in a proceeding, trial judges should only assess the least amount that is consistent with a reasonable method for providing counsel with the necessary information to properly try the cause.