Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. School Bd. of Dade County

• Decision Date: 13 September 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95-1307,95-1307
• Citation: 661 So.2d 111
• Parties: 103 Ed. Law Rep. 1287, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2089 HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 111

661 So.2d 111

103 Ed. Law Rep. 1287, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2089

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Appellee.

No. 95-1307.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

Sept. 13, 1995.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 1995.

Cummings Lawrence & Vezina and Mary M. Piccard and Jeffrey S. Lapin and Mike Piscitelli, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Zack Sparber Kosnitzky Truxton Spratt & Brooks and Alan G. Geffin; David L. Swimmer, Cindi Kamen and Amy Fischer, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, JORGENSON, and GERSTEN, JJ.

JORGENSON, Judge.

Hartford Fire Insurance, surety for Better Construction, Inc., appeals from an order denying its motion to intervene. For the following reasons, we reverse.

In January, 1994, Better Construction sued the School Board of Dade County for breach of contract and defamation arising from school construction contracts. Hartford is the surety on two construction performance and payment bonds with Better Construction as principal, and the School Board as obligee. In August, 1994, the trial court granted the School Board's motion for leave to file a counterclaim; motion practice and discovery proceeded.

On March 25, 1995, with leave from the court, the School Board filed a third-party complaint against DNN Architects and Engineers, seeking indemnification. The pleadings were reopened, and the trial was continued. One month later, Hartford moved to intervene as a defendant.

The trial court denied the surety's motion to intervene, and in so doing, abused its discretion. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.230 provides that "[a]nyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert a right by intervention...." As surety, Hartford has an appropriate interest in the litigation arising from its contractual relationship with the parties. See, e.g., Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So.2d 505 (Fla.1992). Hartford stresses in its briefs that it does not seek to inject new issues or conflicts into the proceedings, but simply to secure a judicial determination confirming its position as surety.

Hartford's motion was not untimely. ¹ Where the litigation is still in the pleading stage, and the intervenors assure the court that their participation will not delay or disrupt the proceedings, it is an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to intervene. Sweetwater Country Club Homeowners' Ass'n v. The Huskey Co., 613 So.2d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); see also National Wildlife...