Case Name: Otto GRACE, et al., Petitioners, v. ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, etc., et al., Respondents; Ronald H. Ingraham, Petitioner, v. Travelers Indemnity Company, etc., et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-09-15
Citations: 911 So. 2d 1235
Docket Number: Nos. SC03-1272, SC04-881
Parties: Otto GRACE, et al., Petitioners, v. ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, etc., et al., Respondents. Ronald H. Ingraham, Petitioner, v. Travelers Indemnity Company, etc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: PARIENTE, C.J., and ANSTEAD, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 911
Pages: 1235–1235

Head Matter:
Otto GRACE, et al., Petitioners, v. ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, etc., et al., Respondents. Ronald H. Ingraham, Petitioner, v. Travelers Indemnity Company, etc., et al., Respondents.
Nos. SC03-1272, SC04-881.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 15, 2005.
Lauri Waldman Ross of Lauri Waldman Ross, P.A., Miami, FL, for petitioner in SC03-1272.
Hinda Klein of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans and Abel, P.A., Hollywood, FL, for respondent in SC03-1272.
Ronald H. Ingraham, Pro se, North Miami, FL, for petitioner in SC04-881.
No appearance for respondent in SC04-881.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Grace v. Royal Indemnity Co., 858 So.2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), and Ingraham v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 875 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), both of which cite to a case that was pending review in this Court (i.e., Inservices, Inc. v. Aguilera, 837 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), review granted, 847 So.2d 975 (Fla.2003)). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981). We consolidate Grace and Ingraham for purposes of this opinion.
This Court recently quashed the Third District's decision in Inservices. See Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So.2d 84 (Fla.2005). The Court has thus determined that it should accept jurisdiction in Grace and Ingraham. It is accordingly ordered that the petitions for review in Grace and Ingraham are granted, and those two decisions are quashed and remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court's decision in Aguilera. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court.
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, C.J., and ANSTEAD, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
CANTERO, J., concurs in result only.
WELLS and BELL, JJ., dissent.