LANTANA INSURANCE, LTD., PETITIONER,
v.
JOSEPH C. THORNTON, III; JEAN THORNTON; MARKHAMAT (MYA) ABDUJALALOVA; AND ROBERT DEAN, 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.
Lantana Insurance sought certiorari review of an order denying its motion to dismiss a third-party complaint for declaratory judgment filed by injured parties against the insurer. The court held that because the injured parties had not obtained a settlement or verdict against the insured as required by Florida Statute § 627.4136, they had no cause of action against the insurer, and the motion to dismiss should have been granted.
The court held that § 627.4136 requires a third party to first obtain a settlement or verdict against the insured before bringing an action against the liability insurer. Because the Abdujalovaes had not obtained a settlement or verdict against Thornton, no cause of action had accrued against Lantana, and the motion to dismiss should have been granted.
[1] A declaratory judgment action against a liability insurer by a person not an insured under the policy is a condition precedent to the accrual or maintenance of a cause of…
[2] A third-party plaintiff may not bring a declaratory judgment action against an insurer prior to obtaining a settlement with or verdict against the insured.
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“It shall be a condition precedent to the accrual or maintenance of a cause of action against a liability insurer by a person not an insured under the terms of the liability insurance contract that such person shall first obtain a settlement or verdict against a person who is an insured under the terms of such policy for a cause of action which is covered by such policy.”
This establishes the statutory requirement that third parties must obtain a settlement or verdict against the insured before suing the insurer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJean Thornton was walking a friend's dog when she allegedly struck Markhamat Abdujalalova with the dog's leash while Abdujalalova was riding a motor s…
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 Certiorari Review Of Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Lantana Insurance, LTD, seeks certio-rari review of an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a third-party complaint for declaratory judgment. Because the conditions mandated by section 627.4136 of the Florida Statutes have not been met, we grant the writ and quash the order denying dismissal.
Lantana is one of two insurance companies providing homeowners’ insurance to Jean Thornton who allegedly, while walking a friend’s dog, “clothes-lined” Markha-mat Abdujalalova with the dog’s leash as Abdujalalova rode by on a motor scooter. Abdujalalova and her husband, Robert Dean, sued Thornton for negligence. Both *251Lantana and Thornton’s other insurer, Alfa Insurance, denied coverage and Alfa brought a separate action to secure a declaration regarding coverage. When Lan-tana failed to join in this action or to bring a separate declaratory judgment action, Abdujalalova and her husband filed a third party complaint against Lantana in Alfa’s declaratory judgment action.
Lantana moved to dismiss the third party complaint arguing that section 627.4136 barred such third party claims absent a settlement or verdict against an insured. That provision expressly provides:
It shall be a condition precedent to the accrual or maintenance of a cause of action against a liability insurer by a person not an insured under the terms of the liability insurance contract that such person shall first obtain a settlement or verdict against a person who is an insured under the terms of such policy for a cause of action which is covered by such policy.
§ 627.4136(1), Fla. Stat. (2011).
The motion was denied and the action abated instead.
Generally, certiorari will not lie to address an order denying a motion to dismiss. See S. Owners Ins. Co. v. Mathieu, 67 So.3d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); see also Universal Sec. Ins. Co. v. Spreadbury, 524 So.2d 1167, 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). However, when an insurer demonstrates that the pre-suit requirements of section 627.4136 have not been met, certiorari review of an order denying a motion to dismiss is appropriate. Mathieu, 67 So.3d at 1158 (“[Wjhere an insurer asserts that the presuit requirements of section 627.4136 have not been met, certio-rari review is appropriate. ... [T]he irreparable harm in such cases arises from the fact that an insurer is being forced to litigate an action brought by a third-party plaintiff which would be barred if, in fact, the requirements of section 627.4136 have not been met.”); see Spreadbury, 524 So.2d at 1167 (confirming that certiorari was appropriate to review an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint where the conditions precedent to accrual of a cause of action set forth in the predecessor to section 627.4136 had not been met); accord Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Moffett, 513 So.2d 1345, 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
It is undisputed that Abdujalalova and her husband have not obtained a settlement with or verdiet against Thornton. They therefore have no beneficial interest in Thornton’s policy with Lantana and no cause of action against Lantana has accrued. See Mathieu, 67 So.3d at 1158-59; Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Boran Craig Barber Engel Constr. Co., 895 So.2d 1136, 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The third party complaint should, therefore, have been dismissed.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is granted and the trial court’s order denying Lantana’s motion to dismiss and abating that action is quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Star Ins. Co. v. Dominguez, 141 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Universal Sec. Ins. Co. v. Spreadbury, 524 So. 2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (construing the 1985 version of the nonjoinder statute, which was then numbered as section 627.7262); Lantana Ins., Ltd. v. Thornton, 118 So. 3d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); see also Dollar Sys., Inc. v. Elvia, 967 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (affirming the dismissal of an action brought by a third party against an insurer to determine coverage issues where neither of the conditions of t…
-
Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Helon S. Morris, 155 So. 3d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ido Ass’n, 104 So. 3d 344, 351 (Fla.2012). The law is well established that a trial court’s incorrect application of Florida’s nonjoin-der statute establishes the irreparable harm necessary for certiorari relief. See Lantana Ins., Ltd. v. Thornton, 118 So. 3d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); General Star Indem. Co. v. Boran Craig Barber Engel Constr. Co., 895 So. 2d 1136, 1138-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Merchs. & Businessmen’s Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bennis, 636 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Thus, we must examine wh…
-
Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 240 So. 3d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…was within the trial court’s discretion to abate, rather than to dismiss, the premature bad-faith claim. We are unpersuaded by Martinez’s arguments and conclude that this case is controlled by our decision in Lantana Insurance, Ltd. v. Thornton, 118 So. 3d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). We accordingly grant the petition and quash the order denying the motion to dismiss Martinez’s unaccrued third-party bad-faith claim against GEICO.1 1 Because we grant the petition on this basis, we do not reach GEICO’s addi…
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
- 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)
- Universal Sec. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Spreadbury, 524 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Moffett, 513 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- S. Owners Ins. Co. v. Mathieu, 67 So. 3d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)