Williams v. Banning, 71--120
| Decision Date | 20 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--120,71--120 |
| Citation | 259 So.2d 725 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Gordon T. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Russell A. BANNING and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees. . Rehearing Denied |
Hardee, Ott & Hamilton, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, P.A., Tampa, for appellee Allstate Ins. Co.
Appellant, Gordon T. Williams, was a defendant along with Allstate Insurance Company in the trial court. Russell A. Banning brought suit against Williams and Allstate and the jury returned a verdict against Williams and Allstate in the amount of $30,000.
Subsequently, Allstate filed its motion to limit judgment to $10,000. The trial court granted the motion limiting Allstate's liability to $10,000, and in its order held that this should Not be res judicata in any proceedings brought by the plaintiff or defendant Williams, charging Allstate with bad faith in its settlement negotiations which took place prior to trial.
The question posed for this court is: What constitutes proper procedure by the trial court after verdict where the verdict exceeds the limits of liability of the policy of insurance issued by the liability insurance carrier. This is one of the questions which is an adjunct growing out of Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla.1969, 223 So.2d 713, and that line of cases where insurance companies are not severed for trial.
In this instance the motion to limit judgment was filed after the verdict was rendered and upon one day's notice to Gordon T. Williams' attorney. In passing, Williams was represented by the same attorney who represented Allstate Insurance Company during the trial and their interests were the same until the rendition of the verdict at which time Allstate filed its motion to limit liability. No adversary hearing was held on this motion nor was the policy itself ever introduced into evidence. However, on depositions and in defendant's answer there was an allegation that Allstate was liable, if liable at all, only under the terms of the policy.
This question has not been directly answered in Florida which is understandable since Shingleton is of rather recent origin.
In the instant case the insurance policy was not introduced into evidence during the trial, nor was any mention made that Allstate would rely on the limitation of its policy; however, a specimen policy was introduced at the hearing on limitation.
It is indicated to us that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. Williams, 79-162
...by pleading in the nature of a cross-claim served on the other parties (the insured and plaintiff/judgment creditor). Williams v. Banning, 259 So.2d 725 (Fla.2d DCA 1972). This procedure has also been used to raise the issue of bad faith settlement negotiating on an insurance company's part......
-
State ex rel. American Home Ins. Co. v. Seay
...the procedure provided in State ex rel. Unigard Insurance Company v. Durrance, 276 So.2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and Williams v. Banning, 259 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), and relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court, await its determination of the cross claim, and then consider any appea......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shilling
...of seeking to protect the interests of the other defendants below, Dawn and Patricia Horen, as the insureds. See Williams v. Banning, 259 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). Although appellants' argument is commendable for its chivalry, it is insufficient legally to sustain the trial court's ruli......
-
Quinn v. Millard
...of the judgment against Allstate and Quinn. See Stella v. Craine, 281 So.2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). And cf. Williams v. Banning, 259 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (where an insured contests his policy limits and no proof of those limits is in evidence, the filing of a cross claim is the pro......