Edelman v. Kolker
| Decision Date | 07 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 66--279,66--279 |
| Parties | Herbert EDELMAN, For the Use and Benefit of Mid-States Ins. Co., Appellant, v. Max KOLKER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
A. John Alberti, Miami, for appellant.
Preddy, Haddad & Kutner and Neil E. Webb, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON and SWANN, JJ., and WILLIAMS, GENE, Associate Judge.
Plaintiff Edelman and defendant Cohen were involved in an automobile accident, resulting in personal injuries and property damage to the plaintiff. Plaintiff was paid by his collision insurance carrier, Mid-States Ins. Co., for property damage to his automobile and, in return, executed a subrogation receipt and proof of loss which was received by the insurance company. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for his personal injuries sustained in the accident, and a verdict and judgment was returned in his favor on the personal injury claim. Thereafter, the instant case was filed against the defendant in the name of the plaintiff, for the use and benefit of Mid-States, Ins. Co., for the property damage. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The trial court issued its order denying the motion for summary judgment and in the same order, by the court's own motion, dismissed the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff had violated the rule against splitting causes of action. It is from that order that plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff also seeks alternatively review of his ore tenus motion to amend his complaint to substitute the name of his insurer as party-plaintiff. We will confine our opinion to that portion of the order which dismissed the complaint.
Appellant contends that the circumstances of this case remove it from the general rule against splitting causes of action, and that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice on such grounds.
Appellee contends that plaintiff, by moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability as res judicata, identified himself as the same plaintiff as in the previous personal injury action, and violated the rule against splitting causes of action, even though his motion for summary judgment was denied.
The general rule in Florida is that only one cause of action arises out of a single tort committed on an individual, even though that tort results in damages to both the person and his physical property. Mims v. Reid, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 498, for the reason that litigation should have an end...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox
...or to force an injured party to bring a personal injury action before the extent of his injuries is known. See also Edelman v. Kolker, 194 So.2d 683 (Fla.3d DCA 1967) (insurer's property damage suit brought subsequent to plaintiff's successful personal injury suit did not violate rule again......
-
Zurich Ins. Co. v. Amcast Indus. Corp.
...arising out of the same tort incident." McKibben v. Zamora, 358 So.2d 866, 868 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1978); accord, Edelman v. Kolker, 194 So.2d 683, 684 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967); Travelers Indemnity Company v. Moore, 304 Ky. 456, 462-63, 201 S.W.2d 7, 11 (1947); General Exchange Insurance Corpor......
-
Int'l Sec. Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Rolland
...action rule when they arise from the same publication upon which a failed defamation claim is based); Edelman v. Kolker, 194 So.2d 683, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) ("The general rule in Florida is that only one cause of action arises out of a single tort committed on an individual, even though t......
-
Cohen v. Teak House, Inc., 76-1211
...the principle set forth in Carol Management Corporation v. Maxwell Company, 156 So.2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); and Edelman v. Kolker, 194 So.2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Error has not been shown. See Best v. Barnette, 130 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA Affirmed. ...