RAYMOND RAMIREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
HARDWARE DEALERS MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
This interlocutory appeal addresses whether a defendant in an insurance coverage declaratory judgment action should be permitted to amend its answer to raise a counterclaim regarding the extent of liability. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the amendment, holding that once equity assumes jurisdiction over a coverage dispute, it must resolve the entire controversy between the parties.
The court held that the amendment should be permitted. Once equity takes jurisdiction over a coverage dispute, it must dispose of the entire controversy between the parties, including related liability issues.
“once equity takes jurisdiction it will dispose of an entire controversy”
Establishes the fundamental equitable principle that justifies allowing the amendment—the court's obligation to resolve all related matters when it assumes jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Company instituted a declaratory judgment action seeking clarification of coverage under an insurance policy an…
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 Declaration Of Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal presents for review the correctness of an order of the chancellor denying the appellant’s motion for leave to amend his answer and/or file a counterclaim.
The record on appeal reveals that the appellee instituted the action in the trial court, seeking a declaration of rights relative to the extent of coverage under an insurance policy and a temporary injunction to enjoin an arbitration proceeding. The proposed amended answer and/or counterclaim would have put in issue the extent of liability in the event the chancellor should determine that there was coverage. It appears that under the decisions of the court in Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So.2d 690, and in Zeagler v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 616, the proposed amendment to the answer and/or counterclaim should be permitted.
*318The appellee urges that to permit such an amendment would be an impairment of the insurance contract, contrary to the provisions of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution. We reject this contention of the appellee for two reasons. First, it instituted the chancery proceedings and, second, once equity takes jurisdiction it will dispose of an entire ■controversy. See: Fink v. Bluestein, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 335 (opinion filed December 1, 1964); 12 Fla.Jur., Equity, § 43, and cases cited thereunder.
Therefore, for the reasons above expressed, the order here under review is reversed with directions to permit the appellant to file an amended answer and/or «counterclaim.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Haines City v. Allen, 509 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…y interest which would be affected by the declaration. Section 86.091, Fla. Stat. (1986). A party against whom a declaratory judgment is sought may file a counterclaim, even for damages in tort. Ramirez v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 170 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); see also Travelers Express, Inc. v. Acosta, 397 So. 2d 733, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). If a defendant has a claim against the plaintiff that arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the plaintiff’s claim, t…
-
Green v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 181 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ility and damages. See: Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Co., Fla.App.1963, 162 So. 2d 690; Zeagler v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 616; Ramirez v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Fla.App.1964, 170 So. 2d 317. [*200] Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the summary final decree here under review is hereby reversed, and this matter is returned to the chancellor for further proceedings. Reversed with directions.…
-
Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 177 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1965)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 170 So. 2d 317.…
Authorities Cited
- Cruger v. Allstate Ins. Co., 162 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Zeagler v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 166 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Fink v. Bluestein, 169 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)