HEZEKIAH STURGIS, PETITIONER,
v.
CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA, A CORPORATION, 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 Florida Supreme Court upheld the District Court of Appeal's decision that a judgment creditor cannot sue an insurer directly for amounts exceeding the insurance policy limits, even when the policy contains language allowing recovery "to the extent of the insurance afforded." The Court distinguished the policy language in this case from that in Auto Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Shaw, which had permitted such suits under different policy provisions.
A judgment creditor may not maintain a direct suit against the insurer for recovery of a judgment in excess of the insurance policy limits under the circumstances and policy language presented in this case. The Court affirmed the District Court of Appeal's negative answer to the certified question.
“any person or organization, or the legal representative thereof who has secured such judgment or written agreement shall thereafter be entitled to recover under this policy to the extent of the insurance afforded by this policy.”
The insurance policy language at issue in the case, limiting recovery to the extent of insurance afforded by the policy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSturgis obtained a judgment against an insured in an automobile accident suit that exceeded the limits of the defendant's insurance policy issued by C…
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 Judgment Creditor Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
The decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, has been certified to us, by that court for review by certiorari, as a decision that passes upon a question of great public interest within the purview of Section 4(2), Article V, of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A.1
Our pursual of the District Court’s opinion,2 in the instant case, discloses that the Circuit Court of Volusia County certified the following question to it for an answer pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 4.6, 31 F.S.A.:
“Where plaintiff in an automobile accident suit has recovered a judgment in excess of the policy limits of the defendant’s insurance policy, and where said policy contains the following provision :
“ ‘any person or organization, or the legal representative thereof who has secured such judgment or written agreement shall thereafter be entitled to recover under this policy to the extent of the insurance afforded by this policy.’
“And where plaintiff has received payment of said policy limits but holds an unsatisfied judgment as to the excess, may the plaintiff maintain a suit directly against the insurer for recovery of the judgment beyond the limits of the policy, based upon the alleged negligence or bad faith of the insurer in the conduct or handling of said suit.”
*314The petitioner contends here, as he did in the District Court, that our decision in the case of Auto Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Shaw, 134 Fla. 815, 184 So. 852, 855, requires an affirmative answer to this question.
The judgment creditor in the Shaw case had the benefit of the following policy provision :
“Insolvency or Bankruptcy of Assured. The insolvency or bankruptcy of Assured shall not release the Company from any payment otherwise due hereunder, and if, because of such insolvency or bankruptcy, and execution on a judgment against Assured is returned unsatisfied the judgment creditor shall have a right of action against the Company to recover the amount of said judgment to the same extent that Assured would have had if he paid the judgment. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.)
The District Court of Appeal after carefully distinguishing the difference in the terminology used in the insurance policy involved in the Shaw case from that involved in the instant cause answered the certified question in the negative.
From our examination of the authorities cited in the briefs of counsel and from our independent research we have reached the conclusion that the District Court was correct in its decision that a judgment creditor may not maintain a suit directly against the insurer for recovery of the judgment in excess of the insurance policy limits under the circumstances of this case and the language of the insurance policy issued by the respondent.
Having concluded that the District Court of Appeal has for sound judicial .reasons reached the correct answer to the certified question, we hereby affirm its decision without further comment and discharge the writ of certiorari heretofore issued.
Affirmed.
TERRELL, DREW, THORNAL and; O’CONNELL, JJ„ concur.
THOMAS, C. J., concurs specially.
ROBERTS, J., heard the argument but did not participate in the decision.
I agree with the disposition but not with the condition precedent that the matter is-of such great public interest as to justify entertaining it under Sec. 4(2) of Art. V" of the Constitution.
THOMAS, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the disposition but not with the condition precedent that the matter is-of such great public interest as to justify entertaining it under Sec. 4(2) of Art. V" of the Constitution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Boston OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980)…than the policy limits, but if it does not, the plaintiff may end up with both the policy limits and an excess judgment. Judge Carroll, in Canal Insurance Company of Greenville, South Carolina v. Sturgis, 114 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), aff’d, 122 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1960), clearly perceived the illogic of allowing an injured third party to maintain a direct action against the insurer for failure to settle when he said: No one can today question the legal right of the insured to sue the insurer for neglige…
-
Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 250 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1971)…plaintiff to bring a direct action against the insurance company for any excess verdict. See Canal Insurance Co. of Greenville, S.C. v. Sturgis, 114 So. 2d 469 (Fla.App. 1st, 1959), affirmed in Sturgis v. Canal Insurance Company of Greenville, S.C., 122 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1960). . Of course it is possible for a contract to be intended for the benefit of both the formal parties and the third party beneficiary. Where this is the case, as we think it is with regard to automobile liability insurance contracts, both…
-
Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc., 128 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1961)…his provision see Carraway v. Revell, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 16, Miami Beach First National Bank v. Edgerly, Fla.1960, 121 So. 2d 417, In re Estate of Wartman, Fla.1960, 121 So. 2d 660, and Sturgis v. Canal Insurance Co. of Greenville, S.C., Fla.1960, 122 So. 2d 313. .P. C. Lissenden Co., Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 632, 636. . Ansin v. Thurston, Fla.1958, 101 So. 2d 808; South Florida Hospital Corp. v. McCrea, Fla.1960, 118 So. 2d 25; Sunad, Inc. v. City o…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v. Shaw, 134 Fla. 815 (Fla. 1938)
- Doane v. City OF W. Palm Beach, 114 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Canal Ins. Co. OF Greenville v. Hezekiah Sturgis, 115 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)