OLGA ORLOFF BALARIN AND JORGE BALARIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Necessary Party Joinder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final order dismissing the instant complaint to compel arbitration is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate the said complaint. We reach this result for the following briefly stated reasons.
First, in a suit by an insured, as here, to compel arbitration on an underinsured motorist claim against one of two underin-sured motorist carriers, it is not required that the insured also join the second under-insured motorist carrier as a necessary party to the suit. Second, the trial court, accordingly, committed reversible error in dismissing the instant suit when the insureds refused to amend the complaint herein to add the second of two underin-sured motorist carriers as a party to this suit and stood on their complaint brought against only one of their underinsured motorist carriers. See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759, 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); O’Donnell v. Chamberlain, 372 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); § 682.03(1), Fla.Stat. (1983).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sachs, 526 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1988)…507 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), based on certified conflict with State v. Sanders, 512 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), aff'd in pertinent part, 510 So. 2d 296 (Fla.1987), State v. Taylor, 482 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and State v. Holcomb, 481 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We quash the decision of the Second District and remand for further proceedings. While operating a motor vehicle, respondent collided with another vehicle on the Courtney Camp…
-
State v. Weston, 510 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) and cases cited; see § 921.141(6)(g) (age of defendant mitigating circumstance as to death penalty). While the lack of a prior record is factored into the guidelines and therefore may not properly be included, State v. Holcomb, 481 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence on the basis of the age factor alone. See State v. Mitchell, 507 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Thus, if we were deemed to have…
-
State v. Torrance Mathis, 541 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…esult of provocation by the victim, although the provocation was not legally sufficient to warrant a finding that defendant had acted in self-defense. In our view, provocation can be a permissible reason for downward departure. Cf. State v. Holcomb, 481 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (duress can be a mitigating factor to warrant downward departure). The State vigorously debates the propriety of the trial court’s finding. The facts were sharply in dispute at the evidentiary hearing, and the trial court resolved…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Hill v. State, 372 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- O'Donnell v. Norine White Chamberlain & Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 372 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)