Case Name: WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., a Delaware corporation and Columbia Casualty Company and Lloyds of London, Petitioners, v. Marietta GOODE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joel Goode, on behalf of Marietta Goode, individually, and Harry Goode, individually, Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-02-25
Citations: 520 So. 2d 270
Docket Number: No. 70054
Parties: WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., a Delaware corporation and Columbia Casualty Company and Lloyds of London, Petitioners, v. Marietta GOODE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joel Goode, on behalf of Marietta Goode, individually, and Harry Goode, individually, Respondents.
Judges: EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 520
Pages: 270–270

Head Matter:
WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., a Delaware corporation and Columbia Casualty Company and Lloyds of London, Petitioners, v. Marietta GOODE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joel Goode, on behalf of Marietta Goode, individually, and Harry Goode, individually, Respondents.
No. 70054.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 25, 1988.
John L. O’Donnell, Jr. and Thomas B. DeWolf of DeWolf, Ward & Morris, P.A., Orlando, for petitioners.
Freidin & Hirsh, P.A., Miami, and Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefs-berg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., Miami, for respondents.
C. Rufus Pennington, III of Margol & Pennington, P.A., Jacksonville, amicus curiae for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We accepted jurisdiction to review Walt Disney World Co. v. Goode, 501 So.2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), because of apparent conflict with decisions of other district courts of appeal. Upon closer examination, we find that the alleged conflict cases are distinguishable and we lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., concurs in result only.
McDOÑALD, C.J., dissents.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT. SEE FLA.R.APP.P. 9.330(d).