State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 92-2140
| Decision Date | 23 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-2140,92-2140 |
| Citation | 618 So.2d 1377 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1062 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Patrick Alan MARSHALL, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David P. Rhodes and David J. Lonigro of Haas, Austin, Ley, Roe & Patsko, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) appeals the non-final order denying its motion for new trial which was entered by the trial court after a jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee, Paula Duszik, on her claim for bad faith. We reverse because we find that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine the bad faith claim.
In February 1989 Duszik was driving north on SR 500 in Ocala. Patrick Marshall walked directly in front of Duszik's vehicle. Duszik did not see Marshall, and her car struck him. As a result of this collision, Marshall suffered severe injuries.
At the time of the accident, State Farm insured Duszik under a liability policy with $50,000 limits. In March 1989, Marshall's attorney notified State Farm that he expected State Farm to tender its policy limits of $50,000 to Marshall. For the next several months the parties continued to negotiate; however, no settlement was reached. Accordingly, in May 1989, Marshall instituted a negligence suit against Duszik.
Duszik thereafter filed a third-party complaint against State Farm. Specifically, Duszik sought a declaratory judgment as to whether State Farm acted in bad faith toward Duszik in the handling of Marshall's claim.
The trial court bifurcated the action, separating the liability claim between Marshall and Duszik from the damages determination between Marshall and Duszik. Also, the trial court bifurcated the bad faith action between Duszik and State Farm from the negligence action between Duszik and Marshall.
The matter as to liability between Marshall and Duszik proceeded to trial first. Upon review of the evidence, the jury entered a verdict finding Marshall 87 1/2% liable and Duszik 12 1/2% liable.
Upon entry of the jury's verdict on the issue of liability, the parties entered into a stipulation and joint motion for stay of the negligence action between Marshall and Duszik so that the bad faith action between Duszik and State Farm could be litigated. The stipulation stated that, in the event a final judgment was entered determining that State Farm was not guilty of bad faith, Marshall and Duszik would execute a full release of all claims against State Farm and State Farm would pay its policy limits of $50,000 to Marshall. The parties further stipulated that, if there was a jury finding of bad faith against State Farm, the abatement would be lifted and the damages portion of the negligence action between Marshall and Duszik would proceed.
The bad faith action was tried in June 1991. Upon conclusion of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict finding that State Farm had acted in bad faith in handling Marshall's claim. No damages were awarded because the amount of any excess verdict in the negligence suit between Marshall and Duszik had not yet been established.
State Farm filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court. This appeal followed. 1
While State Farm raises several issues on appeal, the resolution of one issue is dispositive. We conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to determine whether State Farm acted in bad faith in handling Marshall's negligence claim against Duszik, absent a final judgment against Duszik which exceeded the policy limits.
Duszik instituted this action by filing a third-party complaint against State Farm seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether State Farm had acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations with Marshall. Section 86.011 of the Florida Statutes (1989) sets forth the breadth of the circuit court's jurisdiction in declaratory judgment actions:
86.011 Jurisdiction of circuit court.--
The circuit courts have jurisdiction to declare rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or procedure is open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment is demanded. The court's declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect and such declaration has the force and effect of a final judgment. The court may render declaratory judgments on the existence, or nonexistence:
(1) Of any immunity, power, privilege, or right; or
(2) Of any fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of such immunity, power, privilege, or right does or may depend, whether such immunity, power privilege, or right now exists or will arise in the future. Any person seeking a declaratory judgment may also demand additional, alternative, coercive, subsequent or supplemental relief in the same action.
Section 86.011, Fla.Stat. (1989).
The purpose of the declaratory judgment statute is to afford relief from insecurity and uncertainty with respect to rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations. Individuals seeking declaratory relief must show that there is a bona fide, actual, present, and practical need for the declaration; the declaration deals with a present, ascertained, or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy as to a state of facts; some immunity, power, privilege, or right of the complaining party is dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts; there is some person or persons who have, or reasonably may have, an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in the subject matter, either in fact or law; the antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the court by proper process or class representation;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Higgins v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...See Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So.2d 400 (Fla.1996); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 618 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Declaratory relief is not available to try disputed questions of fact rather than rights, status or relations ......
-
Rodriguez v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
...lacks jurisdiction to render declaratory relief if these required elements are not present. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marshall , 618 So. 2d 1377, 1380 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) ("Absent a bona fide need for a declaration based on present, ascertainable facts, the circuit court ......
-
Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Flugga
...or controversy. Dixie Insurance Co. v. Gaffney, 582 So. 2d 64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993). This meant that the parties in such cases had to go through the trouble and expense of trying the underlying negli......
-
Cawthorn v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
...see also Cunningham, 630 So. 2d at 182; Dixie Ins. Co. v. Gaffney, 582 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). But, the rigid requirement of an excess judgment was sometimes inefficient. Resources were occasionally expe......
-
Florida's third species of jurisdiction.
...181 (Fla. 1994). (55) Dixie Insurance Co. v. Gaffney, 582 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1991); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (56) See, e.g., Levine v. Gonzalez, 901 So. 2d 969, 973 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2005); Rabello v. Alonso, 927 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla.......
-
Procedural remedies
...Ramos v. CACH, LLC , 183 So.3d 1149, 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). See Also 1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Marshall , 618 So.2d 1377, 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), disapproved on other grounds , 630 So.2d 179, 182 (Fla. 1994). 2. Wilson v. County of Orange , 881 So.2d 625, 631......
-
Statutory strict liability for environmental contamination: a private cause of action to remedy pollution or mere legislative jargon?
...which the same court permitted personal injury plaintiffs to assert a private cause of action under [Section] 376.313.) (41) Mostoufi, 618 So. 2d at 1377. (42) Italiano, 908 F. Supp. at 906 (emphasis (43) Kaplan, 674 So. 2d at 203. (44) Id. at 203 and 205 (certifying this issue to the Flori......