What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court, leaving that judgment in place.

Who is affected by this decision?

The appellants (Eagles Nest Development Co., Inc. and Helicopter Structural & Maintenance, Inc.) and the listed appellees are directly affected because the appeal failed and the lower-court outcome remains.

Does the opinion explain why the court affirmed?

No. The entry is a brief per curiam affirmance and contains no substantive legal reasoning or explanation.

Can this be appealed further?

Possibly. A party may consider seeking review by the Florida Supreme Court if jurisdictional criteria are met, but the short opinion does not address preservation of issues or jurisdictional posture.

Eagles Nest Development Co., LLC, Helicopter Structural & Maintenance, Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London

Docket 2D2025-1617

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: May 1, 2026 · today
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 2D2025-1617

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County

Summary

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Eagles Nest Development Co., Inc. and Helicopter Structural & Maintenance, Inc. from a Pasco County circuit-court decision. After considering the record and briefs, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision. The per curiam opinion gives no extended discussion of legal reasoning; the judgment of the trial court therefore stands as entered. All three judges concurred.

Issue Decided

Whether the circuit court's judgment or order (unspecified in this short opinion) should be reversed by the appellants

Court's Reasoning

The published docket entry is a brief per curiam affirmance without substantive opinion; the court affirmed the lower court's ruling and provided no detailed legal analysis in this entry. Because the panel issued a concise affirmance, the appellate court implicitly concluded the appellants' arguments did not warrant reversal. No additional factual findings or legal explanations are provided in the text.

Parties

Appellant: Eagles Nest Development Co., Inc.
Appellant: Helicopter Structural & Maintenance, Inc.
Appellee: Interstate Fire & Casualty Company
Appellee: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London
Appellee: Eagles Nest Condominium Hangar Association, Inc.
Appellee: Saengchuto Enterprises LLC
Appellee: Robert C. Cevasco
Appellee: Thomas Donaldson Reik, Jr.
Appellee: Vincent G. Probst, Jr.
Judge: Alicia Polk
Attorney: Marion Hale
Attorney: Sharon E. Krick
Attorney: Robert E. Jones

Key Dates

Appellate decision date: 2026-05-01

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel about further review
If a party believes grounds exist for further review, interview appellate counsel promptly to assess potential jurisdictional review by the Florida Supreme Court and applicable filing deadlines.
2
Obtain and review the circuit-court record
Request the full trial-court record and any written orders to understand the underlying judgment and to determine whether preservation or procedural issues affect further review.
3
Consider compliance with trial-court judgment
If the affirmed judgment imposes obligations or remedies, prepare to comply or to seek post-judgment relief in the trial court as appropriate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court, leaving that judgment in place.
Who is affected by this decision?: The appellants (Eagles Nest Development Co., Inc. and Helicopter Structural & Maintenance, Inc.) and the listed appellees are directly affected because the appeal failed and the lower-court outcome remains.
Does the opinion explain why the court affirmed?: No. The entry is a brief per curiam affirmance and contains no substantive legal reasoning or explanation.
Can this be appealed further?: Possibly. A party may consider seeking review by the Florida Supreme Court if jurisdictional criteria are met, but the short opinion does not address preservation of issues or jurisdictional posture.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                       SECOND DISTRICT

      EAGLES NEST DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. and HELICOPTER
              STRUCTURAL & MAINTENANCE, INC.,

                               Appellants,

                                   v.

INTERSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
    AT LLOYD'S LONDON; EAGLES NEST CONDOMINIUM HANGAR
  ASSOCIATION, INC.; SAENGCHUTO ENTERPRISES LLC; ROBERT C.
CEVASCO; THOMAS DONALDSON REIK; JR.; and VINCENT G. PROBST,
                             JR.,

                               Appellees.

                           No. 2D2025-1617


                              May 1, 2026

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Alicia Polk, Judge.

Marion Hale and Sharon E. Krick of Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel &
Burns, LLP, Clearwater, for Appellants.

Robert E. Jones of The Jones Law Firm, P.C., Jacksonville, for Appellees
Interstate Fire & Casualty Company and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
London.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

     Affirmed.

SLEET, ATKINSON, and GUARD, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.




                                      2