FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE CELOTEX CORPORATION AND THE JIM WALTER CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL INSUREDS, 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.
FIGA filed declaratory judgment actions in Broward and Dade counties against Celotex and Jim Walter regarding asbestos liability insurance coverage. When the defendants joined together and filed an identical suit in Hillsborough County, FIGA moved to dismiss based on prior jurisdiction. The court reversed the trial court's denial, holding that the first circuit to perfect service has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute despite the parties' argument that joining as plaintiffs created a different legal action.
The court held that the rule requiring dismissal where service of process is first perfected in another circuit applies even when defendants join together as co-plaintiffs in a single action. Identity of parties is met when the same legal controversy exists, and defendants cannot avoid the jurisdictional rule by joining as plaintiffs rather than filing separate actions.
[1] Jurisdiction lies in the circuit court where service of process is first perfected when two actions between the same parties are pending in different circuits.
[2] A court's jurisdiction, once properly invoked concerning a particular controversy, is exclusive of any other court of concurrent jurisdiction.
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“When two actions between the same parties are pending in different circuits, jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected.”
Establishes the controlling legal rule that determines which court has exclusive jurisdiction when identical actions are filed in multiple circuits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 25, 1988, FIGA filed suit against Celotex in Broward County and perfected service the same day. On March 27, 1988, FIGA filed suit against Ji…
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 Priority Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, Inc. (FIGA), the defendant below, appeals from an order denying its motion to dismiss or abate and asserts that other Florida courts of concurrent jurisdiction have previously assumed jurisdiction over the controversy between the parties. We reverse.
On March 25, 1988, appellant FIGA filed a lawsuit against appellee The Celotex Corporation (Celotex) in the circuit court of Broward County. Service of process was effected on the same date. FIGA also filed suit against appellee Jim Walter Corporation (Jim Walter) in Dade County and perfected service on March 27, 1988. In both actions, FIGA sought a declaratory judgment regarding its responsibility for liability insurance coverage of personal injury and property damage claims arising from exposure to asbestos products and materials. FIGA is the successor to a number of insolvent insurers of Celotex and Jim Walter. On April 1, 1988, Celotex and Jim Walter joined together and instituted suit against FIGA in Hillsborough County. The subject matter of this lawsuit is identical to that of the Broward and Dade actions. FIGA filed the instant motion to dismiss or abate, which the trial court denied.
The law is well settled that, “When two actions between the same parties are pending in different circuits, jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected.” Mabie v. Garden Street Management Corp., 397 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla.1981); Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753, 15 So. 2d 842 (Fla.1943). This is true because a single set of facts constitutes the controversy between the parties. When the jurisdiction of a competent court is invoked in regard to those facts, it is to the exclusion of any other court of concurrent jurisdiction.
The appellees successfully argued in the trial court that this rule does not apply here because there is not an identity of parties in the three lawsuits. The identity of parties is a condition precedent to dismissal or abatement in cases of this nature. Bruns v. Archer, 352 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We determine, however, that that requirement has been met here. Clearly, if Celotex and Jim Walter had instituted separate actions in Hillsborough County, each would have been subject to dismissal or abatement. The appellees cannot avoid the clear meaning of the law by simply joining as plaintiffs in a single action. To hold otherwise would be to permit conflicting rulings on the same facts, which is exactly what the Mabie and Martinez decisions prohibit.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand with directions to dismiss this action without prejudice.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and PARKER, J. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. FRY, 693 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…use there. See Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla.1952); Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753, 15 So. 2d 842, 844-45 (1943); Maddox Grocery Co. v. Hay, 87 Fla. 492, 494, 100 So. 747, 747 (1924); Florida Ins. Guar. Assoc., Inc. v. Celotex Corp., 547 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 554 So. 2d 1167 (1989); Royal Globe, 358 So. 2d at 229; Coon v. Abner, 246 So. 2d 627, 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); see also Haley v. Edwards, 233 So. 2d 647, 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Blake, 172 So. 2d at 10. In Coon,…
-
Towers Constr. Co. OF Panama City, Inc. v. KEY W. Polo Club Apts., Ltd., 569 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…strict Court of Appeal held that where there are two actions, simultaneously pending, a stay is appropriate if they involve “the same parties and substantially the same causes of action.” See also Florida Ins. Guaranty Ass ’n, Inc. v. Celotex Corp., 547 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. den., 554 So. 2d 1167 (Fla.1989); Lightsey v. Williams, 526 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Reuther v. Reuther, 524 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., 534 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1988); Thomas v. English, 448 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA…
-
Venom, Inc. v. Pipewelders Marine, Inc., 566 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…pending conclusion of an earlier suit in Louisiana involving essentially the same parties and subject matter. We grant- the petition, quash the order, and direct the trial court to stay the proceedings. See Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Celotex Corp., 547 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Lightsey v. Williams, 526 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). CERTIORARI GRANTED. LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr. v. Garden St. Mgmt. Corp., 397 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1981)
- Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 (Fla. 1943)
- Morgan v. State, 153 Fla. 753 (Fla. 1943)
- Bruns v. Archer, 352 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)