THERESA MARTINEZ AND THERESA MARTINEZ, M.D., P.A., PETITIONERS,
v.
MARIA ITURBE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF HUGO ITURBE; DR. ANDRES REDONDO; SOUTH FLORIDA PULMONARY AND CRITICAL CARE ASSOCIATES, P.A.,; DR. ROBERT DE LA TORRE; HOLLYWOOD ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES OF FLORIDA, P.A.; DR. ALEXIS ABRIL AND ALEXIS ABRIL, M.D., P.A.; DR. LUIS ALDANA; CORAL GABLES EMERGENCY SERVICES, L.L.C.; AND CORAL GABLES HOSPITAL, LIMITED, RESPONDENTS
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.
Martinez petitioned for a writ of certiorari to challenge an order that granted a stay only as to her in a wrongful death medical malpractice action after her insurer became insolvent. The Florida Supreme Court held that the Florida Insurance Guaranty Act requires a stay of the entire proceeding, not just as to the insured defendant, when an insurer is obligated to defend a party.
The court held that a FIGA stay under Section 631.67 applies to the proceeding itself, not just the individual party, and therefore a stay of all proceedings must be granted when an insolvent insurer is obligated to defend any defendant. The word 'all' in the statute means the entire proceeding must be stayed.
[1] A stay under the Florida Insurance Guaranty Act applies to the entire proceeding, not just to an individual party.
[2] The plain and ordinary meaning of the word "all" in statutory language indicates that a stay should encompass the entire proceeding.
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“A FIGA stay under Section 631.67 applies not just to an individual party, but to the proceeding itself.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that the stay extends to the entire case, not merely to the individual insured defendant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn June 2001, Maria Iturbe filed a wrongful death action against Theresa Martinez alleging medical malpractice. Martinez was insured by PHICO Insuranc…
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 Insurer Insolvency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Theresa Martinez and Theresa Martinez, M.D., P.A., (hereafter collectively referred to as “Martinez”), petitions this court for a writ of certiorari seeking to quash an order which granted a stay only as to Martinez in a wrongful death action. We grant certiorari and quash the order entered below.
In June of 2001, respondent Maria Iturbe (“Iturbe”), individually and on behalf of the estate of her husband, filed a wrongful death action against Martinez alleging malpractice. Martinez had professional liability insurance through PHICO Insurance Company (“PHICO”), a Pennsylvania corporation. In February of 2002, PHICO was found to be insolvent and an order of liquidation was entered by the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Pennsylvania. The' order, which was filed in Florida, provided that “all actions in which PHICO is or may be obligated to defend a party in any court are stayed to the extent provided by applicable law ...”
Thereafter, Martinez moved the court for a stay of the entire case pursuant to the Florida Insurance Guaranty Act (“FIGA”), which provides that: “All proceedings in which the insolvent insurer is a party or is obligated to defend a party in any Court ... shall be stayed for 6 months ...” § 631.67, Fla. Stat. (2002). However, the trial court granted a stay only as to Martinez for a period of six months.
In this petition, Martinez argues the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to stay the entire proceeding and that Martinez will be irreparably harmed by not taking part in the defense of the claim, while proceedings continue in Martinez’s absence. We agree.
A FIGA stay under Section 631.67 applies not just to an individual party, but to the proceeding itself. See Jimmy Lang’s Auto Service v. Proctor, 667 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see also Willard v. Davis, 881 S.W. 2d 907 (Tex.Ct.App.Fort Worth 1994) (a stay of all proceedings in a medical malpractice claim is required even though the insolvent carrier covered only one of several healthcare providers involved in the suit). Section 631.67 states that “all” proceedings shall be stayed when an insurance carrier becomes insolvent. The word “all” is defined as “every member or individual component of,” see Webster’s New International Dictionary 54 (3d ed.1986), and “the total entity or extent of,” see The American Heritage Dictionary 94 (2d ed.1982). In statutory interpretation, Florida courts will look to dictionary definitions to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of words. See Suddath Van Lines v. State Dep’t of Envt. Prot., 668 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. City of Miami, 501 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
We find that the plain and ordinary of meaning of “all” in Section 631.67, as defined in the dictionary, clearly indicates that a stay should have been granted for the entire proceeding. Accordingly, we grant certiorari, and quash the order below with directions that a stay be entered as to the entire proceedings.
Certiorari granted; order quashed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. L.D. and J.S., 840 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…der, we may, nevertheless, treat the notice of appeal from that order as a petition for certiorari under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(A). Williams v. Edwards, 604 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Perry; see also Martinez v. Iturbe, 823 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Having elected to do so, we proceed with our review. Turning now to the facts of the case, the parents’ two children were shel [*435] tered in June 2000 because the parents abused drugs and engaged in domestic violence. The next…
-
Raziya Botee v. S. Fid. Ins. Co., 162 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…l, LLC v. Nova Cas. Co., 57 So. 3d 228, 230-31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Harrington v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 54 So. 3d 999, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 998 So. 2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Martinez v. Iturbe, 823 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). However, the lack of an operative term’s definition does not, by itself, create an ambiguity. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. CTC Dev. Corp., 720 So. 2d 1072 (Fla.1998); Kepler v. Ga. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 538 So. 2d 940 (Fla.…
Authorities Cited
- Specialty Rests. Corp. v. City OF Miami, 501 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Suddath van Lines, Inc. v. State, 668 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Jimmy Lang's Auto Serv. & First Alliance Ins. Co. v. Proctor, 667 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)