Dixie Ins. Co. v. Gaffney
| Decision Date | 14 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1960,90-1960 |
| Parties | DIXIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Evelyn O. GAFFNEY, individually, and as next friend of Perry Gaffney and Keith R. Green, Appellees. 582 So.2d 64, 16 Fla. L. Week. D1585 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Janet DeLaura Harrison of Smalbein, Johnson, Rosier, Bussey, Rooney & Ebbets, P.A., Rockledge, John W. Bussey, III, Orlando, for appellant.
Lefferts L. Mabie, III, Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr. and Mark J. Proctor of Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, Pensacola, Michael D. Hook, Pensacola, for appellees.
Appellant, Dixie Insurance Company, appeals from a final order dismissing its declaratory judgment action wherein Dixie sought a declaratory judgment declaring that it was not guilty of bad faith with respect to the claim of negligence (auto accident) against appellee Green, Dixie's insured.
Prior to the filing of Gaffney's negligence suit against Green, Dixie was notified of the accident, a file was opened and the case was assigned to an adjuster. A letter demanding policy limits was sent by Gaffney's attorney but was misplaced by someone in Dixie's office. After receiving no reply from his demand letter, Gaffney's attorney withdrew his offer via letter to Dixie. Subsequently, Dixie sent a letter and a draft representing policy limits to Gaffney's attorney who rejected the tender and filed suit against Green. Thereafter, during the pendency of the tort action, Dixie filed the instant declaratory judgment action seeking a judgment finding that Dixie was not guilty of bad faith in its handling of Gaffney's claim.
Pursuant to a stipulation between Green and Gaffney, the trial court in the tort action stayed the tort action pending resolution of the instant declaratory judgment suit. Subsequently, a hearing was held in the declaratory judgment suit in which the court heard arguments on Dixie's motion for summary judgment. At the hearing, the trial judge announced that he was dismissing the suit because "there is no case of [sic] controversy that has ripened to create an issue of justifiability [sic] 1 ..." and that the court therefore was without jurisdiction to hear the case.
The ensuing order dismissed the suit on the basis that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the case. Alternatively, the court found that Dixie would not be entitled to summary judgment, even if the court did not dismiss the case, because "there exist genuine issues of material fact so that summary judgment would be inappropriate." The order also found that "declaratory judgment is inappropriate for determination of questions of fact." In addition, the order found that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, did not preempt the common law cause of action for bad faith failure to settle. We will address only the propriety of the trial court's dismissal of the suit because our affirmance thereof renders the remaining issues moot.
Under Section 86.011, Florida Statutes (1989), the circuit court:
may render declaratory judgments on the existence or nonexistence:
(1) Of any immunity, power, privilege, or right; or
(2) Of any fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of such immunity, power, privilege, or right does or may depend, whether such immunity, power, privilege or right now exists or will arise in the future.
We have been cited to no case, and we have found none, where a court has entertained a declaratory judgment action seeking a bad faith determination where the posture of the case is as in the case at bar. Although the declaratory judgment statute is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed, Section 86.101, Florida Statutes (1989) 2, one seeking a declaratory judgment must demonstrate "a bona fide, actual, present and practical need for a declaration." May v. Holley, 59 So.2d 636 (Fla.1952); Okaloosa Island Leaseholders Association, Inc. v. Okaloosa Island Authority, 308 So.2d 120, 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Stonewall Ins. Co. W. W. Gay Mechanical Contractor, Inc., 351 So.2d 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Strachan Shipping Company v. Spigner, 573 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We are of the view that Dixie's declaratory judgment claim fails to satisfy such standard.
It would be one thing if the basis of Dixie's declaratory judgment action was a question of its policy's coverage of Gaffney's tort claim. See e.g., Stonewall Ins. Co. v. W.W. Gay Mechanical Contractor, Inc., supra. 3 And the fact that Green's liability had not yet been determined would not necessarily be fatal to Dixie's declaratory judgment action. Id. at 403. By contrast, determinations of bad faith necessarily draw the court into the minutiae of (1) the actions and conduct of the pertinent people involved in responding to and dealing with the third party's claim; (2) the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident or event which gave rise to the third party's claim; and (3) the evidence of the extent of the third party's injuries relative to the coverage limits. And all of this prior to any determination of liability in the underlying tort action. 4
The question of the bad faith of Dixie is too attenuated or contingent an issue to support the declaration sought. We believe that this is so even assuming, as Dixie contends with respect to the summary judgment issue it seeks to assert before us, that the undisputed facts in the present record show that Dixie was not guilty of bad faith.
To activate the jurisdiction of the court under the declaratory judgment act, the plaintiff must, as earlier noted, demonstrate a bona fide, actual, present and practical need for the declaration sought. Okaloosa Island Leaseholders...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Flugga
...the claim had not matured - the insured had not been damaged and there was no existing case or controversy. Dixie Insurance Co. v. Gaffney, 582 So. 2d 64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993). This meant that the pa......
-
Cawthorn v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
...5:11-cv-588-Oc-IOPRL, 2013 WL 1289522, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2013); see also Cunningham, 630 So. 2d at 182; Dixie Ins. Co. v. Gaffney, 582 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). But, the rigid requirement of an exc......
-
Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co.
...an ore tenus motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based upon the recently decided case of Dixie Insurance Co. v. Gaffney, 582 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The trial court denied all of the motions. Standard Guaranty and James then filed an admission of liability on the......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 92-2140
...court lacked jurisdiction to decide the bad faith claim. Standard Guaranty, 610 So.2d at 460. Similarly, in Dixie Insurance Co. v. Gaffney, 582 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the first district held that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment determining ......
-
Florida's third species of jurisdiction.
...460 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1992). (54) Cunningham v. Std. Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So. 2d 179, 181 (Fla. 1994). (55) Dixie Insurance Co. v. Gaffney, 582 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1991); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (56) See, e.g., Levine v. Gonzalez, 90......