Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

May 20, 2016 by admin

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

41
Fla. L. Weekly D1169b
Top 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

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.

(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.)

__________________

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.

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982