LUCIA RUNDELL, APPELLANT,
v.
PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, AND ALAN BACKLUND, 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.
An insurance company sought summary judgment to bar the insured's uninsured motorist coverage claim as time-barred. The court reversed, holding that the claim was a compulsory counterclaim not subject to the statute of limitations under Florida law.
The uninsured motorist claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because it was a compulsory counterclaim arising from the same facts as the insurer's claim, and Florida law exempts compulsory counterclaims from statute of limitations requirements.
[1] A compulsory counterclaim arising out of the same facts as the initial claim is not subject to the statute of limitations.
[2] A claim for uninsured motorist coverage can be a compulsory counterclaim if it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the insurer's declaratory judgment action…
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“Because the appellants counterclaim arose out of the same facts as the insurers claim, it was a compulsory counterclaim.”
Establishes that the uninsured motorist claim qualifies as a compulsory counterclaim based on shared factual origin with the insurer's declaratory relief action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceProgressive Express issued an auto insurance policy covering both Lucia Rundell and Alan Backlund. Rundell was injured while a passenger in a vehicle …
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 Uninsured Motorist Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, J.
The appellant challenges a final summary judgment by which the trial court denied her claim for uninsured motorist coverage as barred by the statute of limitations. Because the appellants claim was a compulsory counterclaim, we reverse.
The appellee insurance company issued a policy of automobile insurance to the appellant and Alan Backlund. The appellant was injured while a passenger in an automobile driven by Backlund and covered under the policy. The appellant filed suit against Backlund, alleging that her injuries had been caused by Backlunds negligent operation of the covered vehicle. The insurer initially provided Backlund a defense but thereafter filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Backlund and the appellant, requesting a declaration that Part I of the insurance policy, the liability section, afforded Backlund no coverage and did not obligate the insurer to defend Backlund in the appellants suit against him. In her response to the complaint, the appellant admitted that there was no coverage under Part I of the policy due to an exclusion from recovery by an insured, but she claimed that coverage was afforded to her under Part III of the policy, the uninsured motorist section.
The insurer subsequently filed a motion for final summary judgment requesting a declaration that the appellants uninsured motorist claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The appellant conceded at the hearing on the motion that if the claim were not a compulsory counterclaim, it would be barred. However, the appellant argued that pursuant to Allie v. Ionata, 503 So. 2d 1237 (Fla.1987), the claim was not subject to the statute of limitations because it was a compulsory counterclaim.
Because the appellants counterclaim arose out of the same facts as the insurers claim, it was a compulsory counterclaim. See Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1992). In Allie, the Florida Supreme Court held that statutes of limitations do not apply to compulsory counterclaims. While the holding in Allie has been limited to cases in which damages are fungible, money damages are ultimately at issue in this case, and Allie applies. See Rybovich Boat Works, Inc. v. Atkins, 585 So. 2d 270 (Fla.1991). Thus, the appellants compulsory counterclaim for uninsured motorist coverage was not barred by the statute of limitations.
The final summary judgment accordingly is reversed.
DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Javier H. Londono, M.D. v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1992)
- Allie v. Ionata, 503 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1987)
- Rybovich Boat Works, Inc. v. Atkins, 585 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1991)