ARNOLD C. LEWIS, APPELLANT,
v.
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Arnold Lewis appealed the dismissal of his disability insurance benefits claim, which the trial court dismissed based on res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court reversed, holding that a jury verdict alone cannot support dismissal on these grounds because a final judgment is required for res judicata and estoppel by judgment to operate.
A jury verdict is not an adjudication, and a judgment is essential to the operation of res judicata or estoppel by judgment. Since no final judgment appeared on the face of the complaint and nothing indicated that a final judgment had been entered on the jury verdict, the trial court erred in dismissing the action at the motion to dismiss stage based on these grounds.
[1] Res judicata and collateral estoppel are affirmative defenses that must be raised in a party's pleading.
[2] An affirmative defense may be asserted in a motion to dismiss if it appears on the face of the complaint.
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“a jury verdict is not an adjudication, and a judgment is essential to the operation of either res judicata or estoppel by judgment”
The court's foundational holding distinguishing jury verdicts from final judgments required for res judicata and estoppel defenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis sought disability benefits under a group insurance policy issued to his employer. He attached to his complaint a jury verdict from an earlier ca…
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 Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Chief Judge.
This appeal is from a final order dismissing plaintiff’s action for benefits under a policy of disability insurance. We reverse.
Appellant’s complaint sought recovery of certain disability benefits under a group policy of insurance issued to appellant’s employer. Attached to and made a part of the complaint was a copy of a special jury verdict in an earlier case between the same parties under the same insurance policy. The verdict indicated the finding of the jury that appellant was disabled by accidental bodily injury and was entitled to benefits from December 11, 1978, to December 11, 1980. The complaint in the instant case was filed August 11,1981, and sought benefits under the same insurance policy from August 4, 1980. On motion of the defendant to dismiss the action on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel, the trial court entered the final judgment of dismissal.
While appellant raises several issues which he contends require reversal, we need discuss only one. Res judicata and estoppel by judgment are affirmative defenses which must be raised by a party when pleading to a preceding pleading. Fla.R. C.P. 1.110(d). If the affirmative defense appears on the face of the prior pleading, it may be asserted as a ground for a motion to dismiss. Id. On a motion to dismiss the complaint, the court must look solely to the complaint and may not consider an affirmative defense which does not appear on the face of the complaint. See Frank v. Campbell Property Management, Inc., 351 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Here, the jury verdict is attached to and made a part of the complaint, so it can be considered for this purpose. However, a jury verdict is not an adjudication, and a judgment is essential to the operation of either res judicata or estoppel by judgment. Armellini Express Lines, Inc. v. Sexton, 384 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); 32 Fla. Jur.2d, Judgments and Decrees, sec. 126. Since no judgment appears on the face of the complaint and there was nothing before the trial judge at that stage of the proceeding to indicate that a final judgment had been entered on the jury verdict, it was error to dismiss the action at that stage on the basis of either res judicata or estoppel by judgment.
The final judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ernestine Patterson v. Matilda Weathers, 476 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…unusual situation, since to be bound by a former judgment, it must be clearly established that the parties and cause of action were identical, and that there was an adjudication on the merits. See Lewis v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 427 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Industrial Contracting Company, 260 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). In this case, Patterson’s complaint attached as an exhibit, a copy of a final judgment in a quiet title suit filed in M…
-
Dirk D. Ehmann v. Fla. Nat'l Bank AT Ocala, 515 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ss, the court must look solely to the complaint and may not consider defenses which do not appear on the face of the complaint. Margerum v. Ross Builders, Inc., 427 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Lewis v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 427 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Frank v. Campbell Property Management, Inc., 351 So. 2d 364 (Fla. [*1064] 4th DCA 1977). It is conceded that the allegations in the instant complaint state a cause of action, and that no determinative affirmative defense appears…
-
Leslie v. Ingram, 786 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1986)…892, 895, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). Florida law requires an adjudication, i.e., the entry of a final judgment, rather than a mere jury verdict, to raise the bar of collateral estoppel in later litigation. Lewis v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 427 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1983). That simple requirement has not been met in this case. The district court’s disposal of the remaining issues is infected with a common error; the judge failed to credit the depositions that the Leslie brothers introduce…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Giesela Frank v. Campbell Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 351 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Wormser v. State, 384 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Armellini Express Lines, Inc. v. Sexton, 384 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)