Burns v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-112,63-112 |
| Parties | Susan Gay BURNS, as the Widow of Chester Arthur Burns, deceased, Appellant, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cowart, Dollar & Glassford, Miami, for appellant.
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl and William J. McCluskey, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
Susan Gay Burns as the widow of Chester R. Burns filed a wrongful death action in the circuit court in Dade County against Henry Martinelli, doing business as H. Martinelli Trucking, and one Arkus G. Austin. She alleged that her husband, while working in the employ of A. F. Foster Bridge Corporation, was killed as a result of negligent operation of a dump truck driven by Austin with knowledge and consent of Martinelli, the owner; and that Martinelli 'was a materialman and/or independent contractor furnishing rock and fill on a pre-load basis.' Martinelli denied he was a materialman or independent contractor and contended in defense that he was not a third party tort-feasor because all involved were statutory fellow servants under a general contractor, and that Burns' claim was restricted to Workmen's Compensation.
Thus, there was presented in the law action filed by Mrs. Burns a material issue of fact 1 as to whether Martinelli was a materialman or independent contractor as she alleged, so as to permit her action, or whether as contended by Martinelli, he and Burns' employer were sub-contractors of a prime contractor on a common job, so as to render applicable the fellow servant rule, and restrict Burns' claim to Workmen's Compensation. See Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., 143 Fla. 335, 196 So. 690; Goldstein v. Acme Concrete Corporation, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 202.
At that stage of the law action, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, the indemnity insurer of Martinelli, filed suit for declaratory decree in another division of the circuit court against the parties to the pending law action, seeking a predetermination of such issue. The provisions of the policy were clear and unambiguous, and it was so stated in the complaint.
The defendants in the declaratory decree suit moved to dismiss, and their motions were denied. The suit was tried, and resulted in a final decree which determined said factual issue as contended for by the insurance company, that is, a finding that Burns' employer and Austin's employer, Martinelli, were both subcontractors of a general contractor. Mrs. Burns took this appeal. She contends first, that the circuit court should not have entertained the suit for declaratory decree by the indemnity insurer, and, second, that the decision was wrong on the merits. We reverse on the basis of appellant's first contention, making it unnecessary to consider other questions presented.
Chapter 87, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the declaratory decree statute, provides a means for determination of a bona fide controversy between a liability insurance company and its insured over the coverage of a policy or over other matters which can be settled more saisfactorily in an action for declaratory judgment than in the ordinary form of litigation. But when a third party has brought a negligence action against an insured, and there is raised or necessarily involved therein an issue between those litigants which has a bearing on the applicability of the policy, the fact that the insurance company's liability to its insured may be affected by the outcome of the negligence action will not permit the insurer to remove a material issue from the negligence action where it belongs and drag it into another court under the guise of seeking a declaratory judgment, and there seek its predetermination. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lee, 5 Cir. 1941, 117 F.2d 735 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
...849. In accord with this result, see Auto Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Moore, 235 Ala. 426, 179 So. 368 (1938); Burns v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 157 So.2d 84 (Fla.App.1963); Associated Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 68 Ill.App.3d 807, 25 Ill.Dec. 258, 386 N.E.2d 529 ......
-
Higgins v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...of Appeal in Irvine v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 630 So.2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and Burns v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 157 So.2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), with regard to a second issue. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HI......
-
Vanguard Ins. Co. v. Townsend
...permit the insurance company to preempt the resolution of fact issues necessarily involved in both suits. Burns v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 157 So.2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); 19 Fla.Jur.2d Declaratory Judgment § 30 (1980). See also the excellent discussion in Brohawn v. Transamerica......
-
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Higgins
...not be separated from those in the underlying tort action. Without citing to it, Gephart is aligned with Burns v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 157 So.2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). In that case, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the owner of a dump truck. See id. at 85. A......