Mackin v. Applestein
| Decision Date | 06 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | 80-808,80-787,Nos. 80-786,s. 80-786 |
| Citation | 404 So.2d 789 |
| Parties | Robert MACKIN, Appellant, v. Allan H. APPLESTEIN, Allan H. Applestein Foundation Trust and Federal InsuranceCompany, Appellees. Allan H. APPLESTEIN and Allan H. Applestein Foundation Trust, Appellants, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward A. Perse, Hawkesworth & Schmick, Jerold Feuer, Miami, for Robert Mackin.
Kimbrell, Hamann, Jennings, Womack, Carlson, Kniskern and A.H. Toothman and R. Owen Ricker, Jr., Miami, for Federal Insurance Co., Tew, Spittler & Berger and Jeffrey A. Tew, Miami, for Allan H. Applestein and Allan H. Applestein Foundation Trust.
Before BARKDULL, SCHWARTZ and FERGUSON, JJ.
In Federal Ins. Co. v. Applestein, 377 So.2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 389 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1980), we held that, upon the face of the plaintiff Mackin's fourth amended complaint against Applestein and the Applestein trust, which claimed that intentional torts were committed with a specific intent to harm, the defendants' liability carrier, Federal, had no obligation to defend or provide coverage. Shortly before the release of that decision, Mackin moved in the lower court to amend the complaint further so as alternatively to claim that Applestein had acted only with imputed or implied malice, an allegation which would presumably have established coverage under Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co. of America v. Kottmeier, 323 So.2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cited with approval in Applestein. After the receipt of our opinion, however, the trial judge complied with our specific directions to do so, see 377 So.2d at 233-34, and entered summary judgments for Federal against Mackin and the Applestein defendants. The present cases are appeals from that judgment and from a later order denying, as to Federal, the motion to amend. 1 We affirm both the judgment and the post-judgment order but remand the cause for further proceedings. 2
The judgments entered for Federal on the fourth amended complaint were plainly correct. Indeed, the trial court was required to comply with our appellate mandate directing that this be done and had no authority whatever to do otherwise. O. P. Corp. v. Village of North Palm Beach, 302 So.2d 130 (Fla.1974); Jones v. Knuck, 388 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Robinson v. Gale, 380 So.2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Modine Manufacturing Co. v. ABC Radiator, Inc., 367 So.2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 342 (Fla.1979); Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So.2d 811, 813-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Similarly, there was no error in the order declining to permit an amendment to the complaint after the thus-required judgments for Federal. At that point, the court had lost jurisdiction to grant such relief. Hargraves v. Costin, 325 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 206 So.2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Marans v. Stang, 124 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).
It is appropriate to add, however, that neither this opinion nor any other factor is an impediment to now amending the fourth amended complaint in the manner sought by Mackin and agreed to by Applestein and the trust (who all have a common interest in securing coverage), 3 and thereupon to proceeding to a determination of Federal's liability under the then-existing fifth amended complaint either by again joining and serving the company in the action itself, a demand by the insureds to defend, or both. While we express no opinion upon the ultimate outcome of that controversy, we do observe that, since we have held in Applestein I that the carrier's responsibility is entirely and exclusively governed by the contents of the operative complaint against the insureds, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Aerolineas Nacionales Del Ecuador
...motion came too late to suspend rendition, it was appealable under the last sentence of Rule 9.130(a)(4). See also Mackin v. Applestein, 404 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (court, after it had lost jurisdiction over case, denied motion to amend complaint; denial of motion to amend was appeala......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stack
...apodictic that the trial court is bound to follow without question the directions and mandate of the appellate court, Mackin v. Applestein, 404 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Jones v. Knuck, 388 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Modine Mfg. Co. v. ABC Radiator, Inc., 367 So.2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1......
-
Trizec Properties, Inc. v. Biltmore Const. Co., Inc., 84-3215
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1979) ("the 'actual facts' of the situation are not pertinent" to the duty to defend issue), opinion after remand, 404 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). At this stage in the proceedings, we have no way of conclusively ascertaining exactly when the damage occurred. While this questi......
-
Wells Fargo Armored Services Corp. v. Sunshine Sec. and Detective Agency, Inc.
...1968); cf. Brickell Place Condominium Ass'n v. American Design & Dev. Corp., 470 So.2d 74, 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Mackin v. Applestein, 404 So.2d 789, 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). 1 In such a scenario, the defendant, upon remand, is entitled to the entry of a final judgment in his favor. Contrar......