Quinones v. Florida Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., s. 78-1734
| Decision Date | 30 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | 78-1962,Nos. 78-1734,s. 78-1734 |
| Citation | 366 So.2d 854 |
| Parties | Manuel QUINONES, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and Paul S. Guglietta and Mary Primeuara, Respondents. Paul S. GUGLIETTA and Mary Primeuara Guglietta, his wife, Petitioners, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and Manuel Quinones, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sally Weintraub, Miami, for Guglietta.
High, Stack, Lazenby & Bender and Alan R. Dakan, Miami, for Quinones.
Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Knight and A. Blackwell Stieglitz, Miami, for Farm Bureau.
Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.
We are presented with two petitions for writs of certiorari which, in essence, allege that the trial court has failed to follow this court's directive in Indiana Insurance Company v. Collins, 359 So.2d 916 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). The situation here is identical in all essential respects to that in Collins.
Petitioner Quinones sued Florida Farm Bureau for uninsured motorist benefits, a suit for such benefits being required by his contract with the insurer. Florida Farm Bureau filed a third party complaint claiming entitlement to subrogation against Paul S. Guglietta and Mary Primeuara Guglietta, his wife, as the tortfeasors in the collision out of which Quinones is claiming uninsured motorist coverage. Quinones moved to strike the third party complaint for failure to state a cause of action and the Gugliettas moved for dismissal of the third party complaint. The trial court entered orders denying each of these motions.
It is clear from the Collins case and cases cited therein that the insurer does not, at this stage of the proceedings, have a cause of action against the Gugliettas. Thereupon, the writ of certiorari is granted and the orders denying the motions to dismiss and to strike for failure to state a cause of action are quashed. Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Collins, the trial court is required to dismiss the third party complaint without prejudice to renew the same at a subsequent stage in this proceeding if it shall appear at that time that the insurer has settled, or been held liable, on the plaintiff's claim.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County
...supra, since the right to subrogation does not arise until the subrogee first pays the claim. Quinones v. Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 366 So.2d 854 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Indiana Insurance Co. v. Collins, 359 So.2d 916 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). Appellant chose to wait and to allow its ob......
-
Attorneys' Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Punta Gorda Isles, Inc.
...Third District. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 476 So.2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Quinones v. Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 366 So.2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The lower court agreed that the subrogation claim was premature because The Fund had not yet entered into any......
-
Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co. v. Ken Mullen Plumbing, Inc.
...of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 476 So.2d 766, 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and Quinones v. Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 366 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), held that the right of subrogation does not arise until the judgment in the main action is entered or ......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Rojas
...its insured's claim, the insurer has no cause of action for subrogation against the alleged tortfeasor. Quinones v. Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 366 So.2d 854 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 71 (Fla.1979). Appellee's reliance upon Carter v. Cross, 373 So.2d 81 (Fla.3d DCA......