Case Name: SIX L'S PACKING COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., etc. et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-03-28
Citations: 276 So. 2d 37
Docket Number: No. 43194
Parties: SIX L’S PACKING COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., etc. et al., Respondents.
Judges: CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 276
Pages: 37–39

Head Matter:
SIX L’S PACKING COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., etc. et al., Respondents.
No. 43194.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 28, 1973.
Rehearing Denied May 3, 1973.
Jack F. Weins, Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick & Schneider, P. A., Hollywood, for petitioner.
Frank E. Maloney, Jr., Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 268 So.2d 560, a decision certified by the District Court as passing on a question of great public interest, recited by that Court to be,
"Under a value reporting form policy requiring the insured to file monthly reports of the value of the property covered from which reports the extent of the insuror's liability and the amount of the insured's premium is determined, are clauses prescribing the procedure for the timely filing of such reports conditions going to coverage or conditions for forfeiture so as to give rise to the application vel non of the doctrine of waiver and estoppel ?
We have jurisdiction of the cause under the authority of Section 3(b)(3), Article V, Constitution of Florida (1973), F.S.A., and F.A.R. 4.6, 32 F.S.A.
After argument and upon consideration of the record and briefs, we hold that the District Court of Appeal has correctly decided the cause and its decision is adopted as the ruling of this Court.
Accordingly, certiorari is discharged.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, J., dissents with Opinion.
DEKLE, J., dissents and concurs with ERVIN, J.