Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Moffett, 87-94
| Decision Date | 12 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-94,87-94 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2392 CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Ted MOFFETT and Betty Jean Moffett, Husband and Wife, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jeffrey A. Cramer and Astrid L. Wistedt, Law Offices of Jeffrey A. Cramer, Pensacola, for petitioner.
William D. Marsh of Emmanuel, Shepard & Condon, Pensacola, for respondents.
Cincinnati Insurance Company (Cincinnati) has filed a petition for writ of common law certiorari, seeking review of a non-final order of the circuit court which denies Cincinnati's motion to dismiss a complaint that joins it in a personal injury action. Finding that joinder of Cincinnati prior to obtaining a judgment against an insured violates Section 627.7262, Florida Statutes (1985), we issue the writ.
Respondents filed a request for information with petitioner pursuant to Section 627.7264, Florida Statutes (1985), providing that a liability insurance company shall furnish certain information to a claimant concerning the details of an insured's coverage within thirty days of a request. Cincinnati failed to comply with the request until thirty-two days thereafter, when the information was dispatched by the petitioner to respondent's attorney. Approximately one year later, respondents filed their personal injury action against both the insured and Cincinnati, and the latter moved to dismiss the action as to it, arguing that section 627.7262 prohibits joinder of an insurance company before a plaintiff receives "a judgment against a person who is an insured under the terms of such policy for a cause of action which is covered by such policy." The court denied the motion to dismiss, linking section 627.7262 with section 627.7264, the latter requiring a liability insurer to provide a statement setting forth the details of an insurance policy within thirty days from a written request of a claimant with regard to insurance. The court concluded in its order that "when a carrier fails to comply with the Florida Statute, 627.7264, it waives its right not to be joined as a party defendant...."
Initially we observe that a writ of common law certiorari is the appropriate remedy for a liability insurance company seeking to bar its 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 necessary to secure the exercise of a right or duty imposed by statute--such as that in section 627.7264. 49 Fla.Jur.2d Statutes § 223 (1984). In our judgment, the power to imply a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quintana v. Barad
...maintained by third party even where insurer fails to comply with disclosure requirements in § 627.7264); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Moffett, 513 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (same).3 Petitioner offered the insurance agent's deposition and a transmittal letter in support of his contention tha......
-
Lucente v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 90-1053
...122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Universal Sec. Ins. Co. v. Spreadbury, 524 So.2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Moffett, 513 So.2d 1345, 1346-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Because Lucente had not received a judgment against the insured, he did not have standing to sue State Farm. ......
-
Lantana Ins., Ltd. v. Thornton
...to accrual of a cause of action set forth in the predecessor to section 627.4136 had not been met); accord Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Moffett, 513 So.2d 1345, 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). It is undisputed that Abdujalalova and her husband have not obtained a settlement with or verdict against Thor......
-
Southern Owners Ins. Co. v. Mathieu
...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 lit......