Capitol Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Ins.

Citation478 So.2d 1105,10 Fla. L. Weekly 2471
Decision Date05 November 1985
Docket NumberNo. BH-335,BH-335
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 2471 CAPITOL FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, ex rel., The DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE of the State of Florida, Appellees.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Robert M. Foster and Christine Rieger Milton, of Mahoney, Adams, Milam, Surface & Grimsley, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellants.

R.J. Castellanos, of Florida Dept. of Ins., Div. of Rehabilitation and Liquidation, Tallahassee, for appellees.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellants appeal, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3), the trial court's denial of motions to vacate an order to show cause filed by appellants TDR Management and Consulting, Inc., DNR Consultants, Douglas Consultants and Integrity Insurance Services, Inc. and by appellants Capitol Fidelity Marketing, Thomas Kalim, David Baldini and Richard Baldini. We affirm.

This cause of action was originated by the Department of Insurance of the State of Florida as an insurer delinquency proceeding pursuant to chapter 631, Florida Statutes, against the insolvent insurer, Capitol Fidelity Life Insurance Company. The show cause order, entered under the authority of the provisions of section 631.399, Florida Statutes, in response to the Department's petition, joined appellants as third party defendants to the proceeding and directed them to show cause why they should not be required to return cash distributions made to them as affiliates of Capitol Fidelity Life.

Venue in the original action was set in Leon County and has not been challenged by Capitol Fidelity Life. The motions to vacate challenged venue as to the above-named appellants. However, as third party defendants, appellants have no standing to challenge venue in this case. A third party proceeding is ancillary to the original action and venue of the original action applies. Mall Bank v. State ex rel. Department of Insurance, 462 So.2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Flagship National Bank v. Commercial Bank & Trust Company, 428 So.2d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Appellants further assert the trial court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that they are not affiliates of Capitol Fidelity Life under section 631.399, Florida Statutes. However, the merits of the "affiliate" question are not ripe for review. The trial court merely has issued a show cause order which directs appellants to respond to the merits of the "affiliate" question by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • S.D.S. Autos, Inc. v. Chrzanowski
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 26 Noviembre 2007
    ...348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. Kadivar, 482 So.2d 501, 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Capitol Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. State Dep't of Ins., 478 So.2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Perimeter Invs., Inc. v. Amerifirst Dev. Co., 423 So.2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 2. Those who suffe......
  • State v. Simmons
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 4 Junio 1991
    ...Lenard, 531 So.2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Zebouni v. Toler, 513 So.2d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Capitol Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Ins., 478 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Certiorari 1 This holding is expressly without prejudice to the state's right to again seek revie......
  • State, Dept. of Highway Safety v. Sarnoff
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 29 Diciembre 2000
    ...(Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Board of Med. Examiners v. Kadivar, 482 So.2d 501, 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Capitol Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. State Dep't of Ins., 478 So.2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Perimeter Invs. v. Amerifirst Dev. Co., 423 So.2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). None of the opini......
  • Broward County v. Florida Nat. Properties, 91-3492
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 10 Febrero 1993
    ...writ of certiorari. While we would not ordinarily review a mere order to show cause, see, e.g., Capital Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Ins., 478 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA1985), we conclude that the order involved here not only departs from the essential requirements of law,......
  • 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