LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY AND LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
SHAND, MORAHAN & COMPANY, INC., AND NORTHBROOK EXCESS AND SURPLUS INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
LPLIC and LPLA challenged the Department of Insurance's refusal to stay administrative proceedings for a declaratory statement when the same issues were already pending in federal court. The court held that while abatement is improper, a stay is appropriate under comity principles when federal proceedings involve the same issues, absent circumstances warranting departure from this rule.
The Department of Insurance abused its discretion in refusing to stay the administrative proceedings pending the outcome of the federal court action. While abatement is not the proper remedy, a stay or suspension is appropriate under comity principles, absent circumstances such as federal court docket congestion that would warrant departure from the rule.
[1] Pendency of a prior suit in federal court does not warrant abatement of a like suit in state court.
[2] A state court may stay or suspend a proceeding until determination of a previously filed federal action involving the same issues.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Pendency of a prior suit in federal court does not warrant abatement of a like suit in state court.”
Establishes that abatement is not the proper remedy for parallel state and federal proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLPLIC and LPLA moved to abate or dismiss a Petition for Declaratory Statement filed by Shand, Morahan & Company and Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Declaratory Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By Petition for Review of Non-Final Administrative Action, Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance Company (LPLIC) and Lawyers Professional Liability Agency (LPLA) seek review of an order of the Department of Insurance denying their motion to abate or dismiss a Petition for Declaratory Statement brought by Shand, Morahan & Company, Inc. and Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company. One of the grounds for the Motion to Abate or Dismiss was that there was then pending before the federal District Court, a law suit between the parties which raised the same issues as those presented in Shand and Northbrook’s Petition for Declaratory Statement.
The parties have not cited, nor has our research uncovered, a case involving a situation such as exists here, where a state administrative proceeding is instituted which raises the same issues as are pending in a previously filed federal court action. However, this court has previously applied certain well established judicial principles to administrative proceedings. Couch v. State, 377 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In Couch, decisions under the declaratory judgments statute were utilized in determining the availability and scope of the remedies in declaratory statement proceedings under the Administrative Procedures Act, § 120.565, F. S., which is also involved here. Id. at 33. Case law dealing with concurrent jurisdiction between state and federal courts should accordingly be instructive in this case.
At the outset, we note that abatement is not the proper remedy in this case. Pendency of a prior suit in federal court does not warrant abatement of a like suit in state court. State ex rel Dos Amigos, Inc. v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313, 131 So. 533 (1930). A state court may, however, stay or suspend a proceeding until determination of the pending federal action. State ex rel Sherrill v. Milam, 116 Fla. 492, 156 So. 497 (1934); Jorge v. Antonio Co., 151 So. 2d 467 (Fla.2d DCA 1963).
In the interests of state and federal comity, where there is concurrent jurisdiction, the general rule is that the court whose jurisdiction first attaches may determine the controversy, and proceedings in the last action filed should be stayed or suspended until the first action is tried and determined. Wade v. Clower, 114 So. 548 (Fla.1927). However, the existence of certain circumstances, such as congestion of the federal court docket, may provide adequate grounds for a trial court, in its discretion, to deny a stay in a state court proceeding filed after a federal court action involving similar issues. ITT Community Development Corporation v. Halifax Paving, Inc., 350 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
There has been no showing in the present case that circumstances existed which would warrant a departure from the rule that an action for declaratory relief, initiated when a suit is already pending which involves the same issues and which would afford full, adequate and complete relief, will not be permitted to proceed. Couch, supra; Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So. 2d 534 (Fla.1952). Therefore, we find that the Department of Insurance abused its discretion in refusing to suspend its own proceedings pending the outcome of the federal court action and reverse the order denying Appellants’ Motion to Abate or Dismiss. Having so concluded, we need not reach the other issues presented by Appellants.
Accordingly, the order appealed is REVERSED, and this cause is REMANDED to the Department of Insurance with directions to enter an order, consistent with this opinion.
SHIVERS, WENTWORTH and LILES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schwartz v. DeLOACH, 453 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…for and against a stay, including as here the unlikelihood of early disposition of the federal trial. The trial court did not err in denying the stay. 350 So. 2d at 117-118. Cf. Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance Co. v. Shand, Morahan & Co., 394 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), in which another panel of the same court subsequently ordered the Department of Insurance to suspend its proceedings pending the outcome of a prior federal action involving the same parties and the same issues. The fact that th…
-
Sunshine State Serv. Corp. v. Dove Invs. OF Hillsborough, 468 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…e lower court and remand for further proceedings. Petition granted. COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur. . See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (1973). . See Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance Company v. Shand, Morrahan & Company, Inc., 394 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Cf. Koehlke Components, Inc. v. South East Connectors, Inc., 456 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (denial of stay of subsequent state action similar to that pending in federal court approved where congested federal docket will like…
-
U.S. Borax, Inc. v. Forster, 764 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…y of notice issues. Because the federal and state courts did not have concurrent jurisdiction, we find that the rule of priority, relied upon by Borax, does not apply in this case. Cf. Lawyers Professional Liability Ins. Co. v. Shand, Morahan & Co., 394 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (citing Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548 (1927)) (“In the interests of state and federal comity, where there is concurrent jurisdiction, the general rule is that the court whose jurisdiction first attaches may determine t…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Neill G. Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817 (Fla. 1927)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Dos Anigos, Inc. v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313 (Fla. 1930)
- Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534 (Fla. 1952)
- Bobby Ray Couch et ux. v. State, 377 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Craft v. State of Fla. ex rel. Richard S. King & Patrici K. King, 350 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- State v. Milam, 116 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1934)
- Severiano Jorge & Tabacalera Severiano Jorge, S.A. v. The Antonio Co., 151 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)