Beck v. Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.

Decision Date19 June 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72-681,72-681
Citation279 So.2d 377
PartiesCharles J. BECK, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Walton & Garrick, Miami, for appellants.

Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart & Proenza, and Wm. Bruce Harper, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ., and JOHNSON, DEWEY, M., Associate Judge.

CARROLL, Judge.

On January 19, 1971, the appellants Charles J. Beck, Jr., Edna M. Owen, and William G. Owen, filed an action in the circuit court of Dade County against Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, herein referred to as the insurer. The complaint charged the defendant insurer with breach of contract by failing and refusing to defend an action brought against Beck. The damages sought were for attorney's fees for defense of an action filed against the plaintiffs by or on behalf of Cassandra Kasprzyk. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant insurer, and the plaintiffs appealed.

On October 18, 1964, Beck, while driving an automobile owned by the plaintiff William Owen, lost control thereof causing a one-car accident resulting in injuries to persons who were passengers in the automobile. One who was seriously injured was Mary M. Brantley. Another injured person was Cassandra Kasprzyk.

On December 23, 1964, the insurer disclaimed liability and gave notice it would not defend any claims arising from said accident. The first action against Beck was one on behalf of Kasprzyk, which was filed January 4, 1965. A second action was filed against Beck on February 26, 1965, on behalf of Brantley. The Brantley action proceeded to judgment on January 27, 1966.

A year thereafter, on April 27, 1967, and prior to trial and entry of judgment in the Kasprzyk case, Beck filed an action in the local federal district court against the insurer, charging breach of contract by the insurer and seeking recovery of his attorney fee expense in defending the Brantley personal injury action. The trial court denied recovery thereof, and Beck appealed. The federal appellate court reversed. In that litigation it was established that Beck was covered as insured under the policy, and Beck obtained judgment against the insurer for his attorney fee expense incurred in defense of the Brantley action. See Beck v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Cas. Ins. Co., 5 Cir.1970, 429 F.2d 813. That opinion contains a detailed statement of the facts, except as to the Kasprzyk action and the outcome thereof and the subsequent proceedings.

Thereafter the Kasprzyk personal injury claim (which as noted above had been filed prior to the Brantley action) was brought to trial and resulted in a judgment entered on November 13, 1968. Approximately two years later, in January of 1971, this action was filed by Beck (and the Owens) against the insurer seeking recovery of attorney fee expense for the defense of the Kasprzyk action.

The defendant insurer answered, contending the prior action by Beck for recovery of expenses for the defense of the Brantley case barred...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Grissom v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 22, 1992
    ...splitting of the insured's cause of action that bars a second action against the insurer. Beck v. Pennsylvania National Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 279 So.2d 377, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA1973) (approving insurance company's argument that "it was incumbent on Beck [the insured] to have awaited the conclusio......
  • Schimmel v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 86-1430
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 1987
    ...and recovered in one action or not at all. Gaynon v. Statum, 151 Fla. 793, 10 So.2d 432 (1942). Beck v. Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Casualty Ins. Co., 279 So.2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The rule is founded on the sound policy reason that the finality it establishes promotes greater stability in ......
  • Quality Type & Graphics v. Guetzloe
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 1987
    ...Am.Jur.2d Actions s. 59 (1977); Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd., 443 So.2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Beck v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co., 279 So.2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). While Quinn may seem irreconcilable with this rule, there can be an exception where res judicata s......
  • McNichols v. State, 72-892
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 19, 1973
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT