Canadian Home Ins. Co. v. Norris
| Decision Date | 26 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-478,85-478 |
| Citation | 471 So.2d 217,10 Fla. L. Weekly 1600 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1600 CANADIAN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Iris NORRIS and Joseph Norris, her husband, Luc Lessard and Marc Lessard, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ross Manella and Joseph P. Klapholz of Ilovitc & Manella, P.A., Hollywood, for petitioner.
Scott P. Schlesinger of Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for respondents Norris.
Petitioner Canadian Home Insurance Company seeks a writ of common law certiorari, contending that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss. We grant the writ and quash the order.
An order denying a motion to dismiss is not one of the enumerated orders subject to non-final appeal. See Rule 9.130(a)(3), Fla.R.App.P. However, because adequate relief cannot be obtained on plenary appeal and because the trial court's order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, review may be had by common law certiorari. See Home Insurance Company of Illinois v. Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company, 461 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); New Hampshire Insurance Company v. Kimbrell, 343 So.2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Beta Eta House Corporation v. Gregory, 230 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
Norris, the plaintiff in the action below, simultaneously filed suit against the alleged tortfeasor and Canadian as the insurer. Canadian moved to dismiss, contending, as a liability insurer, it could not be joined in an action prior to the entry of judgment against the person who is insured under the terms of the liability policy. As indicated, the trial court denied the motion.
Section 627.7262, Florida Statutes (1983), amended as of October 1, 1982, modifies the common law rule which permitted direct joinder of an insurer in an action by the injured third-party beneficiary. VanBibber v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance Company, 439 So.2d 880 (Fla.1983); Osborne v. Elizabeth Massey Investment Corporation, 467 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). As the statute is currently drafted, a plaintiff's third-party interest in the insurance policy must vest, by way of final judgment, before an action is filed against the insurer. Neither the plain language of the statute, nor the decisions which have touched on its meaning, support Norris' contention that application of section 627.7262 hinges on the existence of a "no-joinder" provision in the contract between insurer and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co.
...Insurance Company of Illinois v. Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company, 461 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) and Canadian Home Insurance Company v. Norris, 471 So.2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). However, more recently in Doerschuck v. Doerschuck, 481 So.2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), we reverted to the......
-
Jenne v. Maranto
...no adequate remedy on appeal"); Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Canadian Home Ins. Co. v. Norris, 471 So.2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (even though trial court's order denying defendant's motion to dismiss was not subject to nonfinal appeal, court woul......
-
American Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bender
...9.100(f), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; Kauffman v. King, 89 So.2d 24, 26 (Fla.1956). See also Canadian Home Insurance Company v. Norris, 471 So.2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Respondent John Bender, a coppersmith by trade, was exposed to asbestos while in the United States Navy and fi......
-
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Moffett, 87-94
...joinder in a personal injury action before the entry of a final judgment, as required by section 627.7262. Canadian Home Insurance Co. v. Norris, 471 So.2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In so saying, we also acknowledge that trial courts have the power to imply an appropriate remedy that may be ......