Kenilworth Ins. Co. v. Pizarro, 78-1401
| Decision Date | 17 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1401,78-1401 |
| Citation | 369 So.2d 995 |
| Parties | KENILWORTH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Tania PIZARRO, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Vernis & Bowling and Frank C. Vernis, Jr., Coconut Grove, for appellant.
Adolfo Del Castillo, Coral Gables, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
Kenilworth Insurance Company, defendant in the trial court, takes this appeal from an order denying its post-trial motion to limit judgment to the amount of the policy coverage.
Tania Pizarro sued Jose Genova and his insurer (Kenilworth) for damages resulting from an automobile accident. Kenilworth claimed, during the discovery period, the policy limits ($20,000/$10,000/$5,000) were repeatedly made a matter of record and acknowledged by Pizarro. Kenilworth does admit that it received a letter from Pizarro's counsel, wherein the attorney expressed the opinion that Section 324.021(7), Florida Statutes (1973) was applicable, thus making the policy limits $15,000/$30,000. Kenilworth claimed that the statute was not applicable; that the issue was never raised again. On the other hand, Pizarro points out that she made a demand of $45,000.00 against Kenilworth and Dade County (co-defendant in the trial court); that this demand resulted in nothing other than an offer of a judgment of $3,000.00. Pizarro acknowledges the fact that Kenilworth, by answers to interrogatories, claimed limits of $10,000/$20,000 but shows the court that after receipt of this information Pizarro claimed the applicability of Section 627.733(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1973), and demanded $15,000.00 in settlement from Kenilworth. Pizarro also notes that the accident in question occurred in January of 1975, well before the statutory limits were reduced to $10,000.00. 1
The case went to trial and Pizarro received a verdict and judgment of $25,000.00 against Kenilworth and its insured. Kenilworth filed a motion for new trial, which did not mention the problem of policy limits. Final judgment was entered on January 5, 1978; eight days later Kenilworth filed a motion to limit judgment, which was denied on June 26th and Kenilworth filed a notice of appeal from same on July 13th. The appellee notes that the notice of appeal does not refer to the final judgment, just the order on the motion.
The motion to amend was timely filed. See: Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(g). Therefore, being a timely filed motion, the final judgment was not rendered under Florida Appellate Rules until it was disposed of. See: Florida Appellate Rule 9.020(g).
Counsel for the appellee says that this case is controlled by the opinion in Williams v. Banning, 259 So.2d 725 (Fla.2d DCA 1972). We ag...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. Williams, 79-162
...impliedly allowed the issue of bad faith settlement negotiations to be raised in the original negligence action. Kenilworth Ins. Co. v. Pizarro, 369 So.2d 995 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). Although in State ex rel. American Home Ins. Co. v. Sealy, 355 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 361 So.2d ......
-
Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey
...liability, the defendant can correct the error by filing a motion to alter or amend the judgment. See Kenilworth Ins. Co. v. Pizarro, 369 So.2d 995, 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); cf. Florida Patient's Comp. Fund v. Scherer, 558 So.2d 411, 415 (Fla. The common feature of these cases is that the mo......