NATHANIEL W. TINDALL, II, APPELLANT,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Tindall appealed the dismissal of his third-party action against an insurance company in a defamation and malicious prosecution suit brought against him. The court reversed, holding that the nonjoinder of insurers statute does not apply when the insured (rather than the injured party) impleads the insurer as a third-party defendant seeking indemnification.
The nonjoinder of insurers statute and Nail are inapplicable to cases where the insured, rather than an injured party, impleads an insurer as a third-party defendant. An insured may implead an insurance company as a third-party defendant when seeking indemnification, subrogation, or contribution.
[1] A third-party complaint must allege a claim for indemnification, subrogation, or contribution against the third-party defendant.
[2] An insurance contract is in the nature of a contract for indemnification, permitting impleader of an insurer.
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“To properly plead a third-party cause of action, the third-party complaint must allege a claim for indemnification, subrogation or contribution against the third-party defendant.”
Establishes the legal requirement for valid third-party complaints
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff John Grant, Jr. sued Tindall for defamation and malicious prosecution. Tindall sought and obtained leave to file a third-party action agains…
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 Severance Of Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
Tindall appeals the dismissal of his third-party action against The Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers). Tindall contends that the nonjoinder of insurers statute, section 627.7262, Florida Statutes (1987), is inapplicable under the present circumstances and does not bar his third-party action. We agree and reverse.
Plaintiff John Grant, Jr. filed a complaint alleging that Tindall defamed him in the course of legal proceedings and maliciously prosecuted a federal lawsuit based upon the same transactions. Tindall sought leave of court to add third-party defendants to the lawsuit. The trial court granted the motion and an action in impleader was filed against Travelers, American States Insurance Company, and Albany Insurance Company. In the third-party complaint, Tindall alleged that the third-party defendants provided insurance coverage to him at various times during the periods relevant to this lawsuit and that ultimately they may be liable to him for any judgment rendered in favor of Grant. On Travelers’ motion, the trial court dismissed the third-party action against Travelers, relying on State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Nail, 516 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
To properly plead a third-party cause of action, the third-party complaint must allege a claim for indemnification, subrogation or contribution against the third-party defendant. Leggiere v. Merrill Lynch Realty/Fla. Inc., 544 So. 2d 240, 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). An insurance contract is in the nature of a contract for indemnification. Under the similar third-party practice in federal courts, impleader of an insurance company which denied coverage is permissible. See Skevolfilax v. Quigley, 810 F. 2d 378, 386 n. 6 (3d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom, Township of Edison, N.J. v. Skevolfilax, 481 U.S. 1029, 107 S.Ct. 1956, 95 L.Ed.2d 528 (1987).
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Nail, 516 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), and the nonjoinder of insurers statute, section 627.7262, Florida Statutes (1987), are inapplicable to this case. Nail and section 627.7262 prevent a person who is not an insured from making a liability insurer a party defendant before obtaining a judgment against the insured. Here, the insured, not the injured party, impleaded Travelers as a third-party defendant. Travelers argues that insurance coverage should have no bearing on the issue of liability and damages in the tort action. If Travelers is prejudiced, the trial court can sever the third-party action for trial.
We reverse the dismissal of the third-party action and remand for Travelers to be reinstated as an impleaded party.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gen. Star Indem. Co. & Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Boran Craig Barber Engel Constr. Co., Inc., 895 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…r and, of course, is yet to be resolved. Taking Bo-ran’s assertion as true for purposes of this analysis, its declaratory action against General Star essentially is a claim against its own insurer for coverage. In Tindall v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 613 So. 2d 1369, 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), we held that the nonjoinder statute does not bar such a claim. Tindall had been sued for defamation and had filed a third-party action against his own insurance company. We reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of the acti…
-
Merchs. & Businessmen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bennis, 636 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…. at 1023. Respondents/defendants respond that the non-joinder statute and Nail are inapplicable because the non-joinder statute does not specifically preclude an insured’s third party action against its insurer. Tindall v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 613 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), is relevant on this point. In that case the second district reversed the dismissal of an insured’s third party impleader action against his insurer. The court analogized to third party practice in federal courts, where impleader…
-
Kendall v. Gilmore, 915 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…aim.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.180(a). In this case, the appellants’ amended complaint could not maintain a valid claim for contribution, indemnification or subrogation. Rupp v. Philpot, 619 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Tindall v. Travelers Indem. Co., 613 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Matey v. Reinman, 599 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Leggiere v. Merrill Lynch Realty/Florida, Inc., 544 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See Boyd v. Halstead, 817 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The facts in the Third Party Compla…
Previewing 3 of 4 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. Nail, 516 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Leggiere v. Merrill Lynch Realty/Florida, Inc., 544 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Octopi, Inc. v. Courtney, 481 U.S. 1029 (U.S. 1987)
- Vaden v. Virginia, 481 U.S. 1029 (U.S. 1987)
- Skevofilax v. Sergeant William Quigley, 810 F.2d 378 (3d Cir. 1987)