JEAN L. RIHON, APPELLANT,
v.
HERBERT J.T. WILSON, D/B/A WILSON INSURANCE AGENCY, APPELLEE; JEAN L. RIHON, APPELLANT, V. THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., APPELLEE; JEAN L. RIHON, APPELLANT, V. HERBERT J.T. WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A WILSON INSURANCE AGENCY, AND THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the plaintiff's claim against Wilson was not a recognized cause of action, but the claim against Ohio Casualty Company was properly stated and should proceed.
Plaintiff sued Wilson and Ohio Casualty Company. The claim against Wilson was dismissed with prejudice, and this dismissal was affirmed on appeal. The…
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 Amended Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This is a consolidated appeal of final summary judgments rendered in favor of defendants/appellees. We affirm as to appellee, Wilson, and reverse as to appellee, Ohio Casualty Company.
In 1981, appellant’s amended complaint against both appellees was dismissed with prejudice as to Wilson but by stipulation between the parties the claim against Ohio Casualty Company was stayed, pending Ri-hon’s appeal against Wilson. We affirmed the dismissal with prejudice, Rihon v. Wilson, 415 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for rev. denied, 424 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1982). All of the pertinent facts which led to appellant’s action are recited in our earlier decision.
Rihon’s claim as to Wilson, like the proverbial phoenix, keeps rising from its own ashes. However, subject to a contrary result by Florida’s highest court pursuant to any future review of the present decision, we hope to put the claim to rest by affirming summary final judgment in favor of appellee, Wilson. Simply stated, in our view Hamer v. Kahn, 404 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), did not create a cause of action previously unavailable to appellant when we first reviewed the case. Wagner v. Baron, 64 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1953), is inapposite because appellant could have stated a recognizable cause of action but failed to do so.
The situation is completely different as to Ohio Casualty Company. Rihon’s claim against it remained in limbo during the Wilson appeal. He had the right to amend his complaint against the insurer, notwithstanding the claim against Wilson had been eliminated. He did so, stated a cause of action, and now has the opportunity on remand to attempt to prove what he has alleged.
HERSEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wagner v. Baron, 64 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1953)
- Young v. State, 404 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Hamer v. Kahn, 404 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Rihon v. Wilson, 415 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)