LORI ANN BOLZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, 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.
Lori Ann Bolz appealed the dismissal of her uninsured/underinsured motorist claim against State Farm on res judicata grounds. The court reversed, holding that res judicata cannot be determined on a motion to dismiss because it is an affirmative defense that requires consideration of facts outside the complaint.
A motion to dismiss cannot be used to resolve the affirmative defense of res judicata because such a motion is designed to test legal sufficiency, not determine factual issues, and the court must confine itself to allegations within the complaint. Although affirmative defenses can be raised in a motion to dismiss if the complaint's allegations demonstrate their existence, res judicata was improperly raised here because the complaint did not reference the prior action.
[1] A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint and is confined to the allegations within the complaint's four corners.
[2] Res judicata is an affirmative defense that can be raised in a motion to dismiss only if the complaint's allegations demonstrate its existence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 motion to dismiss is designed to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint, not to determine issues of fact.”
Establishes that motions to dismiss cannot resolve factual matters or affirmative defenses requiring factual development
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Bolz filed an action against State Farm to recover damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident, seeking recovery under the uninsured/…
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 Underinsured Motorist Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Lori Ann Bolz, challenges a final judgment dismissing her action against the appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, on the basis of res judi-cata. We reverse.
Ms. Bolz filed this action against State Farm seeking to recover damages for injuries she sustained as a result of an automobile accident. She claimed that State Farm was responsible for the damages pursuant to the uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions of her insurance policy with State Farm.
State Farm filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Bolz’s complaint on the grounds that her action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Copies of motions for summary judgment and a final summary judgment in another action in which the parties were involved were attached to the motion.
After considering the motion and the argument of counsel, the trial court, based upon section 627.7403, Florida Statutes (1995), and upon the holding of Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 535 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), approved, 559 So. 2d 195 (Fla.1990), held that Ms. Bolz’s cause of action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and dismissed it with prejudice. This timely appeal followed.
Because the trial court erred in dismissing Ms. Bolz’s complaint based upon a proeedurally incorrect motion, we are not required to decide if the law relied upon by the trial court was properly applied in this matter or if Ms. Bolz was improperly denied her right to show “good cause” under section 627.7403, and because of the inadequate record furnished to us, we decline to do so.
State Farm sought to have Ms. Bolz’s claim dismissed on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. A motion to dismiss is designed to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint, not to determine issues of fact. Lowery v. Lowery, 654 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In considering a motion to dismiss, the trial court is required to confine itself to the allegations contained within the four comers of the complaint. City of Clearwater v. United States Steel Corp., 469 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see Livingston v. Spires, 481 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Res judicata is an affirmative defense, and although affirmative defenses can be raised in a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint demonstrate their existence, City of Clearwater, 469 So. 2d at 916, the complaint in this case does not refer to the prior action. Since the court could not consider the pleadings attached to State Farm’s motion, the court erred in dismissing the action on the basis of res judica-ta. Lowery, 654 So. 2d at 1219; Lucas v. Davidson, 624 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Livingston, 481 So. 2d at 88.
We, therefore, reverse and remand to permit the action to proceed. In answering the complaint, State Farm may, of course, allege res judicata as an affirmative defense if it desires.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
THREADGILL, C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bess v. Eagle Cap., Inc., 704 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…hus, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court may not look beyond the four corners of the complaint itself. See Sigma Fin. Corp. v. Investment Loss Recovery Servs., Inc., 673 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Bolz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 679 So. 2d 836, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Because of this limitation, generally, collateral estoppel is an affirmative defense which must be raised in an answer. See Palmer v. McCallion, 645 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(“Res judicata and collateral estoppel a…
-
Fla. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am., 763 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ute for summary judgment.” Roberts v. Children’s Med. Servs., 751 So. 2d 672, 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see McWhirter, Reeves, McGothlin, Davidson, Rief & Bakas, P.A. v. Weiss, 704 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Bolz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 679 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also Cintron. However, the trial court found that the complaint filed by FFB contains specific allegations that establish as a matter of law that the “pollution” and “non-listed location” exclusions apply to prohibit coverage…
-
D.F. v. Dep't OF Revenue ex rel. L.F., 736 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…n similar to the Pinellas County action, which was clearly precipitated by the pleadings filed by the Department. .We recognize that res judicata is typically an affirmative defense raised by a defendant. See Bolz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 679 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). However, we find no fault with the trial court’s decision to raise this issue on its own. First, the petition incorporated the judgment of dissolution and thus, on its face, disclosed that the relief requested was barred by res j…
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
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 559 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1990)
- Livingston v. Spires, 481 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Lowery v. Lowery, 654 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 535 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Nat'l Standard Life Ins. Co. & Leon Coplin v. Garner, 535 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- City OF Clearwater v. United States Steel Corp. & U.S.S. Realty Dev., 469 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Lucas v. Davidson, 624 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)