Woolzy v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 77-2224
| Decision Date | 25 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-2224,77-2224 |
| Parties | Dorothy W. WOOLZY and David Woolzy, Appellants, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nelson & Nelson, Hialeah, for appellants.
Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and R. Benjamin Reid, Miami, for appellee.
Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and KEHOE, JJ.
Appellants, third party plaintiffs below, bring this appeal from an order dated September 28, 1977, entered by the trial court dismissing with prejudice their third party complaint against appellee, third party defendant below.
Appellants brought an action for a declaratory judgment seeking an adjudication of their rights relating to appellee's failure to renew a policy of insurance. Thereafter, appellee filed a motion to dismiss which the trial court granted with prejudice. From the trial court's order granting appellee's motion, appellants appeal.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred (1) by considering extraneous documents attached to appellee's motion to dismiss, and (2) by dismissing their third party complaint with prejudice.
Our review of the record shows that the trial court did not consider any "extraneous documents" in ruling on appellee's motion to dismiss. The trial court did consider certain documents which appellants incorporated into their third party complaint, but pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.130(b), these documents were properly considered by the trial court as a part of the pleadings.
Further, appellants argue that the trial court improperly made determinations of fact in its ruling. The record shows that the trial court merely interpreted the applicable statute (Section 627.728(12), Florida Statutes (1975)) in conjunction with the facts pleaded. The trial court, in effect, ruled that, even assuming the facts alleged to be true, the statute upon which appellants sued afforded them no relief. This is the appropriate test under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b)(6).
Appellants sought relief below pursuant to Section 627.728(12), Florida Statutes (1975). This Section provides certain guidelines for cancellations and nonrenewals; however, subsection (12) relates solely to cancellations. The pleadings in this case show that the policy in question was not renewed (as distinguished from being cancelled); accordingly, the trial court ruled that the facts alleged by appellants did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feller v. Eau Gallie Yacht Basin, Inc.
...County, 85 So.2d 865 (Fla.1956).3 Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b)(2).4 Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.130(a).5 Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.130(b).6 Woolzy v. Government Emp. Ins. Co., 360 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Harry Pepper & Assoc. Inc. v. Lasseter, 247 So.2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).7 See Sheppard v. Inverness Coca-Cola ......
-
Posigian v. American Reliance Ins. Co. of New Jersey
...any attached documents incorporated therein." Hopke v. O'Byrne, 148 So.2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); see Woolzy v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 360 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. Lasseter, 247 So.2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Further, a court may tak......
-
Bal Harbour Village v. City of North Miami
...considered a part thereof for purposes of considering a motion to dismiss. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.130(b); Woolzy v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 360 So.2d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).2 Ordinance 888 was a "development order" within the meaning of the statute. See id. § 163.3164(7), (8)......
-
Fidelity and Cas. Co. of New York v. L. F. E. Corp.
...consider the exhibits attached to appellant's third amended third party complaint as a part of the pleadings. Woolzy v. Government Emp. Ins. Co., 360 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. Lasseter, 247 So.2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Appellant's third amended third......