SHARYN ZIMMERMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN AND NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parental Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYD, Chief Justice.
This cause is before the Court on petition for review of the decision in Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 447 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The district court of appeal certified that its decision passed upon a question of great public importance, thus giving this court jurisdiction to consider the petition for review. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The question certified is whether “the doctrine of interspousal immunity, like the doctrine of parental immunity [is] waived to the extent of available liability insurance, when the action is for a negligent tort.” 447 So. 2d at 1019.
On the authority of our recent decision in Snowten v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 475 So. 2d 1211 (Fla.1985), we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court of appeal.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. McDONALD, J., concurs with an opinion.
ADKINS and OVERTON, JJ., dissent.
McDONALD, Justice,
concurring.
Believing that our holding in Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1979), should be modified to allow one spouse to maintain an action against the other to the extent of available liability insurance coverage, I dissented in Snowten v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., no. 64171 (Fla. Aug. 29, 1985). However, Snowten obtained the majority approval of the Court and I therefore feel obliged to follow it in this case where the issue is identical.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ernestine Chatmon v. Milford Woodard, 492 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…umstances by the controlling case of Gaston v. Pittman, 224 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1969). Affirmed. . See Snowten v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 475 So. 2d 1211 (Fla.1985); Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 447 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), approved, 478 So. 2d 350 (Fla.1985). . It may have been appropriate to have conditioned permitting the amendment upon the defendant’s payment of the additional costs and expenses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the apparently inexcusable tardiness in asserting the…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Clauson, 511 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…pulated that the vehicle was, in fact, “given” to the injured plaintiff who therefore has no valid claim against the owner or, as a result, under UM against State Farm. Reversed. . Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 447 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), aff'd, 478 So. 2d 350 (Fla.1985). It is undisputed that this doctrine bars Mrs. Clauson's claim against her husband. . The UM policy provides, in pertinent part: We will pay damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of…
Authorities Cited
- Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1979)
- Snowten v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. & Willie Lee Snowten, 475 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1985)
- Sharyn Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 447 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)