ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES A. JOHNSON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GLORIA VAUGHN, DECEASED, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Intervene cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
An insurer, Allstate, appeals an order denying its motion to intervene in a wrongful death action in which the estate of the decedent alleges that Allstate’s insured negligently shot and killed the decedent.
The insurer’s petition for intervention in effect seeks to have an adjudication that (1) the insured was late in filing a notice of claim, (2) the insurer was substantially prejudiced by the late notice of claim, (3) the insured’s action in killing plaintiffs decedent was intentional and willful rather than negligent, and (4) [by implication] that the insurer is not liable to defend or pay under its policy because of the prejudicial late notice of claim and because the insured’s actions were intentional rather than negligent.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it denies intervention because the would-be intervenor seeks to inject new issues into the pending action.1
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, J., and SCHWARTZ, A.R., Associate Judge, concur. . See Riveria Club v. Belle Mead Development Corp., 141 Fla. 538, 194 So. 783 (1939); Oster v. Cay Construction Co., 204 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vanguard Ins. Co. v. Townsend, 544 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…Vanguard’s motion to intervene and file its declaratory complaint, we think the trial court was correct in denying it for the given reason, and for two other more fundamental ones. The trial court relied solely on Allstate Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 483 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). In Allstate, we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an insurance company’s motion to intervene in the underlying tort action against its insured because the motion injected new issues, including cov…
-
Superior Fence & Rail OF N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…petition as a direct appeal of a final order and affirm. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(k); In re S.N.W., 912 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The allowance of intervention is subject to the trial court’s discretion. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 483 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Intervention is appropriate only when the intervenor has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation such that the intervenor “will either gain or lose by the direct legal [*105] operation and effect of the judgment.”…
Authorities Cited
- The Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp. & The Rio Vista Hotel & Improvement Co., 141 Fla. 538 (Fla. 1939)
- Bernstein v. Goodbody & Co., 204 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)