Michel Valdez v. Progressive Select Insurance Company

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida

Opinion filed June 25, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0119
Lower Tribunal No. 24-177881-CC-25
________________

Michel Valdez,
Appellant,

vs.

Progressive Select Insurance Company,
Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michaelle
Gonzalez-Paulson, Judge.

Michel Valdez, in proper person.

Kubicki Draper, P.A., and Valerie A. Dondero and Barbara Fox, for
appellee.

Before, LOGUE, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Finch v. Auto Club Ins. Co. of Fla., 412 So. 3d 847, 851

(Fla. 6th DCA 2024) (“[T]he principle of priority is generally applied to cases

pending concurrently in a federal court and a state court or currently in courts

of two different states, [but] the principle is also applicable when two cases

are pending in different circuits within this state.” (quoting Inphynet Cont.

Servs. v. Matthews, 196 So. 3d 449, 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016))); Flynn v.

Flynn, 132 So. 3d 904, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“In the present case, where

the cases are pending in different divisions of the same circuit court, the

principles of priority would apply to prevent multiple cases and unnecessary

litigation.”); Inphynet Cont. Servs., 196 So. 3d at 464 (“The rationale for the

application of the principle of priority, as a matter of comity, is the avoidance

of wasting judicial resources in duplicative and unnecessary proceedings

and the risk of inconsistent judgments regarding the application of law to the

same factual dispute.”); Atl. Coast Conf. v. Fla. State Univ. Bd. of Trs., 398

So. 3d 479, 485-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (recognizing trial courts may

consider matters outside the pleadings when determining whether to apply

the principle of priority—trial court properly considered a declaration from a

party representative in the first-filed North Carolina action when determining,

in the later-filed Florida action, whether the North Carolina case was

anticipatory and therefore constituted a special, additional, exceptional, or

2
extraordinary circumstance affecting the priority analysis); U.S. Bank Nat’l

Ass’n ex rel. Ajax Mortg. Loan Tr. 2018-B Mortgage-Backed Notes v.

Vadney, 387 So. 3d 441, 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (“In applying the principle

of priority, the pivotal question is whether the second-filed action is

sufficiently similar in parties and issues as to be unnecessarily duplicative of

the prior-filed proceeding.” (quoting Inphynet Cont. Servs., 196 So. 3d at

464)); Reliable Restoration, LLC v. Pan. Commons, L.P., 313 So. 3d 1207,

1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“Where the two actions involve a single set of

facts such that resolution of the one case will resolve many of the issues

involved in the subsequently filed case, the cases are substantially similar

and comity principles will apply.” (internal quotation omitted)); Leslie Fay

Retail Outlets, Inc. v. Gallery Mfg., Corp., 653 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1995) (“[T]his case involves actions identical in parties and issues so

as to be unnecessarily duplicative of the first-filed . . . [case].”).

3