Case Name: Colleen M. STEADMAN, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-05-18
Citations: 932 So. 2d 1034
Docket Number: No. SC05-693
Parties: Colleen M. STEADMAN, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Respondents.
Judges: PARIENTE, C.J., and ANSTEAD, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 932
Pages: 1034–1036

Head Matter:
Colleen M. STEADMAN, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Respondents.
No. SC05-693.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 18, 2006.
Matthew D. Valdes, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Petitioner.
Steven L. Brannock and Maegen E. Peek of Holland and Knight, LLP, Tampa, FL, Chris N. Kolos and Christopher An-nunziato of Holland and Knight, LLP, Orlando, FL, for Respondent.

Opinion:
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Steadman, 895 So.2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), in which the Second District Court of Appeal relied upon the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Inservices, Inc. v. Aguilera, 837 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), quashed, 905 So.2d 84 (Fla.2005). At the time the Second District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Steadman, Inservices was pending review in this Court. Obviously, the district court did not have the benefit of our subsequent decision which was rendered on June 16, 2005, in which we quashed and remanded the Third District's decision in Inservices on the basis that the complaint stated a viable cause of action in tort based on conduct which allegedly occurred during the claim process because the alleged conduct there was to the level of an independent intentional tort. See Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So.2d 84, 93 (Fla.2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).
The petition for review is granted. On authority of our decision in Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So.2d 84 (Fla.2005), the decision under review is quashed, and this case is remanded to the Second District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in Aguilera. In quashing and remanding this decision we do not reach the merits of the instant matter and express no opinion as to whether a valid cause of action exists.
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, C.J., and ANSTEAD, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.
WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which BELL, J., concurs.