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 4, 2017 by admin

Abbey Adams Law: Declaratory Judgment – Insurance – Non-joinder of Insurer in Action Against Insured

42
Fla. L. Weekly D968c
Top of Form

Declaratory
judgment — Insurance — Non-joinder of insurer in action against insured —
Trial court erred in denying motions to dismiss, for failure to comply with
statutory condition precedent, a complaint in which an injured party sought
declaration that liability policy issued by insurers covered the plaintiff’s
bodily injury claim against the insured and the plaintiff’s separate negligence
suit against the insured — Although trial court properly rejected plaintiff’s
argument that non-joinder statute did not apply because insurers were surplus
lines insurers, it erred in abating/staying the action pending plaintiff’s
compliance with statutory presuit requirements rather than granting insurers’
motions to dismiss

INTERNATIONAL SPECIAL EVENTS AND
RECREATION ASSOCIATION, INC., PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY AND CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
AT LLOYD’S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NUMBER LAP0334, Petitioners, v. MATTHEW
BELLINA AND SURF SLIDE, LLC, Respondents. 5th District. Case No. 5D16-4021.
Opinion filed April 28, 2017. Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the
Circuit Court for Brevard County, George B. Turner, Judge. Counsel: Erin M.
Raschke, Matthew L. Litsky, and Sarah B. Van Schoyck, of Phelps Dunbar LLP,
Tampa, and Elizabeth K. Russo, of Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., Miami and Green
& Ackerman, P.A., Boca Raton, for Petitioners. Robert P. Major, of Ver
Ploeg & Lumpkin, P.A., Orlando, for Respondent Matthew Bellina. No
appearance for other respondents.

(PALMER, J.) International Special
Events and Recreation Association, Inc. (ISERA), Prime Insurance Company
(Prime), and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy
Number LAP0334 (Underwriters) (collectively, Insurers), filed a petition
seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the disposition portion of the circuit
court’s order which addressed their respective motions to dismiss the complaint
for declaratory relief filed by Respondent, Matthew Bellina (Bellina). We grant
the petition and quash the disposition portion of the trial court’s order.

Bellina filed a personal injury lawsuit
against Surf Slide, contending that he was injured, in part, as a result of
Surf Slide’s negligence. While that suit was pending, Bellina filed a Complaint
for Declaratory Relief alleging, in pertinent part, that:

[a]s a
third party beneficiary under the [Insurance] Policy [issued by Insurers to
Surf Slide], Matthew Bellina is entitled to bring this action in this Court, to
obtain a judicial declaration resolving the question whether the [Insurance]
Policy issued by the [Insurers] to Surf Slide provides coverage to Surf Slide
for Matthew Bellina’s bodily injury claim and suit against Surf Slide.

The complaint acknowledged the
existence of Florida’s Nonjoinder Statute, section 627.4136, Florida Statutes
(2016), which provides, in pertinent part:

627.4136.
Nonjoinder of Insurers

(1) It
shall be a condition precedent to the accrual or maintenance of a cause of
action against a liability insurer by a person not an insured under the terms
of the liability insurance contract that such person shall first obtain a
settlement or verdict against a person who is an insured under the terms of
such policy for a cause of action which is covered by such policy.

(2) . . .
No person who is not an insured under the terms of a liability insurance policy
shall have any interest in such policy, either as a third-party beneficiary or
otherwise, prior to first obtaining a settlement or verdict against a person
who is an insured under the terms of such policy for a cause of action which is
covered by such policy.

However, the complaint averred that
section 627.4136 did not apply to the instant law suit because Insurers are
surplus lines insurers governed by section 626.913(4) of the Florida Statutes
(2016). That statute provides:

626.913
Surplus Lines Law; short title; purposes

. . . .

(4) Except
as may be specifically stated to apply to surplus lines insurers, the
provisions of chapter 627 do not apply to surplus lines insurance . . .

Insurers filed motions to dismiss
the complaint, arguing that Bellina had no right or standing to file a suit
raising insurance coverage issues given his failure to comply with the presuit
requirements of section 627.4136. Upon review, the trial court correctly held
that the language of section 627.4136 is sufficiently specific to apply to
actions brought against surplus lines insurers pursuant to section 626.913(4)
and, as such, Bellina must comply with the conditions precedent of section
627.4136(1) before he can pursue an action against Insurers. Yet, instead of
granting Insurers’ motions to dismiss, the court denied the motions and
abated/stayed Bellina’s action pending his compliance with section 627.4136(1).

Insurers filed a petition for writ
of certiorari, seeking to quash the disposition portion of the trial court’s
order, arguing that the disposition should have been dismissal. We agree.

Generally,
a party may not obtain a writ of certiorari to quash an order denying a motion
to dismiss. See Universal Sec. Ins. Co. v. Spreadbury, 524 So. 2d 1167,
1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). But where an insurer asserts that the presuit
requirements of section 627.4136 have not been met, certiorari review is
appropriate. See id.; Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Moffett, 513 So. 2d
1345, 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We believe that the irreparable harm in such
cases arises from the fact that an insurer is being forced to litigate an
action brought by a third-party plaintiff which would be barred if, in fact,
the requirements of section 627.4136 have not been met.

S. Owners Ins. Co. v. Mathieu, 67 So. 3d 1156, 1157-58 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

Accordingly, we grant the petition
and remand this matter for the entry of a dismissal order.

Petition GRANTED; Trial Court Order
QUASHED in part; Cause REMANDED. (COHEN, C.J. and LAMBERT, J., concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Attorney’s fees — Trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of insureds where filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute — Where insurer admitted coverage for damage to interior of home, but denied coverage for damage to roof, the dispute over cause of loss to roof was an amount of loss issue for appraisers, not a coverage issue for court — Where insurer demanded appraisal prior to filing of lawsuit by insured, and indicated that it would repair any damage awarded in appraisal, the filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute over roof damage
  • Insurance — Commercial liability — Exclusions — Assault and battery — Insurer had no duty to defend insured in action alleging injury arising out of assault and battery on insured’s premises where policy contained endorsement excluding coverage for injury arising out of or resulting from assault or battery
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Assignees — No error in finding that appraisal provision of insured’s homeowner’s policy applied to insured’s assignee and granting insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Policy did not classify appraisal as a duty of the insured — Assignee received an assignment that entitled it to receipt of payment from insurer, and concomitant with that right was its duty to comply with the conditions of the contract that afforded it payment
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Post-loss obligations — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer after finding that insureds had forfeited their policy coverage for failure to provide a sworn proof of loss — Policy did not eliminate duty of insured to provide sworn proof of loss where insurer opted to repair — However, because insureds complied to some extent with policy requirements, and policy required insurer to prove it was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to provide sworn proof of loss, material issues of fact remain
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Watercraft exclusion — No error in determining that watercraft exclusion in the insureds’ homeowners’ insurance policy precluded coverage for injuries sustained by a third party in a boating accident that occurred when the insured son, who had permission to use the boat from the insured father, allowed another third party to pilot the boat while intoxicated — The only applicable exception to the watercraft exclusion unambiguously states that the watercraft exclusion does not apply if the outboard engine or motor is not owned by an insured, and the boat and engine in this case were owned by the insured father — Severability clause, which provides that the policy “applies separately to each insured,” did not render watercraft exclusion ambiguous — Exceptions to the watercraft exclusion are not dependent on the insured who seeks coverage, but on the nature of the watercraft at issue

Blog Archives

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