CAPITOL FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Capitol Fidelity Life Insurance Company and related entities appealed the trial court's denial of motions to vacate a show cause order in an insurer delinquency proceeding. The court affirmed, holding that third-party defendants lack standing to challenge venue and that the affiliate status question is not ripe for interlocutory review.
Third-party defendants have no standing to challenge venue because a third-party proceeding is ancillary to the original action and venue of the original action applies. The question of affiliate status is not ripe for interlocutory review because the show cause order is non-final and merely directs appellants to respond on the merits, with the opportunity for direct appeal after final judgment.
[1] Third-party defendants in an ancillary proceeding lack standing to challenge venue in the original action.
[2] Venue for a third-party proceeding is determined by the venue of the original action.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 third party proceeding is ancillary to the original action and venue of the original action applies.”
Establishes the controlling principle that third-party defendants cannot challenge venue separately from the original action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Insurance initiated an insurer delinquency proceeding against Capitol Fidelity Life Insurance Company under Florida Statutes chapter…
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 Show Cause Order cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellants appeal, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3), the trial court’s denial of motions to vacate an order to show cause filed by appellants TDR Management and Consulting, Inc., DNR Consultants, Douglas Consultants and Integrity Insurance Services, Inc. and by appellants Capitol Fidelity Marketing, Thomas Kalim, David Baldini and Richard Baldini. We affirm.
This cause of action was originated by the Department of Insurance of the State of Florida as an insurer delinquency proceeding pursuant to chapter 631, Florida Statutes, against the insolvent insurer, Capitol Fidelity Life Insurance Company. The show cause order, entered under the authority of the provisions of section 631.-399, Florida Statutes, in response to the Department’s petition, joined appellants as third party defendants to the proceeding and directed them to show cause why they should not be required to return cash distributions made to them as affiliates of Capitol Fidelity Life.
Venue in the original action was set in Leon County and has not been challenged by Capitol Fidelity Life. The mo tions to vacate challenged venue as to the above-named appellants. However, as third party defendants, appellants have no standing to challenge venue in this case. A third party proceeding is ancillary to the original action and venue of the original action applies. Mall Bank v. State ex rel. Department of Insurance, 462 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Flagship National Bank v. Commercial Bank & Trust Company, 428 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Appellants further assert the trial court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that they are not affiliates of Capitol Fidelity Life under section 631.-399, Florida Statutes. However, the merits of the “affiliate” question are not ripe for review. The trial court merely has issued a show cause order which directs appellants to respond to the merits of the “affiliate” question by presenting any defenses they may assert in that regard, including the defense that they are not affiliates. Such a non-final order affecting subject matter jurisdiction is not reviewable in an interlocutory appeal pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3). The proper arena for determination of the “affiliate” question under section 631.399 is in the trial court. The parties are not precluded from seeking review of the trial court’s decision in that regard on direct appeal.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.D.S. Autos, Inc. v. Chrzanowski, 976 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…o. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Ronbeck Constr. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bd. of Med. Exam’rs v. Kadivar, 482 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Capitol Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. State Dep’t of Ins., 478 So. 2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Perimeter Invs., Inc. v. Amerifirst Dev. Co., 423 So. 2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). . Those who suffer loss as a result of a violation of the Act may recover actual damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs. See § 501.…
-
Broward Cnty. v. Fla. Nat'l Props., 613 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…amended order that the county has taken its appeal, which we now treat as a petition for writ of certiorari. While we would not ordinarily review a mere order to show cause, see, e.g., Capital Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Ins., 478 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA1985), we conclude that the order involved here not only departs from the essential requirements of law, but that absent immediate review by this court, the county may suffer irreparable harm for which remedy on plenary appeal is inadeq…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Sarnoff, 776 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Ronbeck Constr. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Board of Med. Examiners v. Kadivar, 482 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Capitol Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. State Dep’t of Ins., 478 So. 2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Perimeter Invs. v. Amerifirst Dev. Co., 423 So. 2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). [*983] None of the opinions on which today’s majority opinion relies addresses the jurisdictional restraints we face in the present case.5 “C…
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
- The Mall Bank v. State, 462 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 428 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)