41
Fla. L. Weekly D1169bTop of Form
Fla. L. Weekly D1169bTop of Form
Civil
procedure — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of law in
determining that a person injured in the same accident was not an indispensable
party to instant suit asserting an automobile accident claim
procedure — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of law in
determining that a person injured in the same accident was not an indispensable
party to instant suit asserting an automobile accident claim
THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Petitioner, v. FRANKLIN RAMIREZ, Respondent. 4th District. Case No. 4D15-3689.
May 18, 2016. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE
14-11158 12. Counsel: Jason B. Trauth and Jason B. Bloom of Lydecker|Diaz,
Miami, for petitioner. Michele K. Feinzig and Robin Bresky of Law Offices of
Robin Bresky, Boca Raton, for respondent.
Petitioner, v. FRANKLIN RAMIREZ, Respondent. 4th District. Case No. 4D15-3689.
May 18, 2016. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE
14-11158 12. Counsel: Jason B. Trauth and Jason B. Bloom of Lydecker|Diaz,
Miami, for petitioner. Michele K. Feinzig and Robin Bresky of Law Offices of
Robin Bresky, Boca Raton, for respondent.
(PER CURIAM.) We deny the petition for certiorari from an
order denying a motion to join an indispensable party in an automobile accident
claim. The party sought to be joined was also injured in the accident. The
trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in
determining that the other injured person was not indispensable. See
Phillips v. Choate, 456 So. 2d 556, 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The other
injured person had not filed suit.1 Even if he had, he cannot be
considered indispensable, where it is not a departure from the essential
requirements of law to deny consolidation of two claims arising out of the same
accident. See Pages v. Dominguez, 652 So. 2d 864, 867 (Fla. 4th DCA
1995). (WARNER, STEVENSON and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.)
order denying a motion to join an indispensable party in an automobile accident
claim. The party sought to be joined was also injured in the accident. The
trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in
determining that the other injured person was not indispensable. See
Phillips v. Choate, 456 So. 2d 556, 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The other
injured person had not filed suit.1 Even if he had, he cannot be
considered indispensable, where it is not a departure from the essential
requirements of law to deny consolidation of two claims arising out of the same
accident. See Pages v. Dominguez, 652 So. 2d 864, 867 (Fla. 4th DCA
1995). (WARNER, STEVENSON and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1The other injured person did move to
intervene at the same time that petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to join an indispensable party. The trial court denied intervention,
but the second injured person did not appeal.
intervene at the same time that petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to join an indispensable party. The trial court denied intervention,
but the second injured person did not appeal.