STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL ROBERT, ELIZABETH ROBERT, CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA AND HESS CORPORATION, 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.
State National Insurance Company appealed a trial court's amended final judgment that added it as a defendant without proper findings on whether the statutory condition precedent of section 627.4136(1), Florida Statutes, was satisfied. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court failed to make required determinations regarding whether the Roberts obtained a verdict against an insured under the liability policy for a covered cause of action.
The trial court erred by adding State National as a defendant without making findings regarding the Roberts' satisfaction of the section 627.4136(1) condition precedent. The amended final judgment did not comport with the appellate court's mandate from the prior appeal because it contained no findings, statements, or comments explaining the court's determination.
[1] A trial court must determine whether the condition precedent of section 627.4136(1), Florida Statutes, is met before adding an insurer to a judgment.
[2] The condition precedent of section 627.4136(1), Florida Statutes, requires a verdict against an insured for a covered cause of action before an insurer can be added to a…
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“That condition precedent requires the appellees, Paul Robert and his wife Elizabeth ("the Roberts"), to obtain a verdict against a person, or in this case the City of Hollywood, Florida ("the City"), "who is an insured under the terms of [the liability] policy for a cause of action which is covered by such policy."”
Establishes the statutory condition precedent under section 627.4136(1) that must be satisfied before an insurer can be added as a defendant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Roberts sought to join State National Insurance Company, the City of Hollywood's insurer, to their judgment as a defendant. The trial court grante…
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 Condition Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
The issue on appeal is whether the trial court again erred in entering amended final judgments adding an insurer to those judgments without first determining whether the condition precedent of section 627.4136(1), Florida Statutes (2010), was met. That condition precedent requires the appellees, Paul Robert and his wife Elizabeth (“the Roberts”), to obtain a verdict against a person, or in this case the City of Hollywood, Florida (“the City”), “who is an insured under the terms of [the liability] policy for a cause of action which is covered by such policy.” Id. The order being appealed does not comport with this court’s mandate from the appellant’s prior appeal because it contains no findings, statements, or comments regarding the court’s determination of the Roberts’ satisfaction of section 627.4136’s condition precedent. State Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Robert, 71 So.3d 238, 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Therefore, we reverse.
The facts involved in this matter are well set forth in this court’s prior opinion. Id. Upon remand from this court, the trial court held a hearing on the Roberts’ second renewed motion to join the City’s insurer, State National Insurance Company (“State National”), to the judgment as a defendant. No transcript of this hearing was included in the record on appeal, although the record reflects that the court entertained oral argument on the issue and granted the Roberts’ motion without making any findings, statements, or comments.
Similar to the deficient order from the first appeal, the order granting the Roberts’ motion now on appeal contains no findings, statements, or comments regarding the court’s determination of the Roberts’ satisfaction of section 627.4136’s condition precedent. Likewise, the amended final judgments and the trial court’s order denying State National’s motion for rehearing do not contain findings, statements, or comments regarding the interplay of the policy language, section *951627.4136, and section 768.28; nor is there provided an explanation of the trial court’s ruling.
Because the trial court’s order does not comport with this court’s clear instructions on remand, we reverse with instructions to strike State National as a defendant from the amended final judgments based upon the Roberts’ failure to satisfy the condition precedent of section 627.4136(1). See State Nat’l Ins. Co., 71 So.3d at 241.
Reversed with Instructions.
MAY, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.