MARILYN A. SMITH, PETITIONER,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that the petitioner is a vexatious litigant and will not be permitted to file further petitions for writ of habeas corpus unless signed by a Florida Bar member.
The petitioner filed multiple petitions for writ of habeas corpus to litigate an insurance dispute with respondent Allstate Insurance Company, apparen…
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 Vexatious Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
On Order to Show Cause
PER CURIAM.
This court issued an order to the petitioner Marilyn A. Smith to show cause why she should not be barred from filing further petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this court. In the instant petition, and previous1 ones, the petitioner has attempted to use the petition for writ of habeas corpus as a mechanism to bring before this court a dispute between herself and respondent Allstate Insurance Company. The apparent purpose of invoking habeas corpus is because a petition for writ of habeas corpus does not require a filing fee. See Art. I, § 13, Fla. Const. The petitioner is not incarcerated. It is impermissible, and frivolous, to attempt to litigate an insurance dispute in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 Fla. Jur.2d, Habeas Corpus § 3 (1998).
We conclude that the petitioner qualifies as a vexatious litigant under the authorities summarized in Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So. 2d 980, 985-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
We direct the clerk of this court to reject any further petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this court on the petitioner’s behalf unless signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. See id. at 988. To the extent that the petitioner’s filings were intended to be a motion for rehearing of this court’s order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus, rehearing is denied.