LILLIAN DELORES SWAIN, APPELLANT,
v.
RELIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND SERVICE-FIRST, INC., FLORIDA CORPORATIONS, 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 policyholder filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that her insurer must defend her in a small claims action and pay associated damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as improper for declaratory judgment, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal on that ground but reversed the prejudicial nature of the dismissal.
A declaratory judgment is not the proper remedy when the complaint merely alleges breach of contract without presenting facts reflecting genuine doubt about the policy's meaning, interpretation, or applicability. However, dismissal should not have been with prejudice because the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law for breach of contract damages, and the complaint's deficiencies could have been cured by amendment.
“Though alleging as a conclusion that she was in doubt as to her rights under the policy, the amended complaint presented no-facts or circumstances reflecting a doubt as-to the meaning, interpretation or applicability of the policy or the coverage thereunder.”
Establishes that declaratory judgment requires actual ambiguity in the contract, not merely a claim of breach
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSwain obtained an automobile liability insurance policy through Service-First from Reliable Insurance Company. After an automobile accident, she was 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 Adequate Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by the plaintiff below from an order granting a motion of the defendant Reliable Insurance Company to dismiss the second amended complaint, and dismissing the cause with prejudice.
The suit was filed in equity, for a declaratory decree. By her second amended complaint the plaintiff alleged that through the defendant Service-First, Inc., she applied for and obtained an automobile liability indemnity insurance policy from the defendant Reliable Insurance Company; that as a result of an automobile accident thereafter she incurred a liability to another party, who filed suit thereon against her in the small claims court; that the insurer refused to defend that action as required by provisions of her insurance policy, and denied liability under the policy to pay any judgment in the action or her claims for medical expenses which were provided for in said policy. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had incurred reasonable attorney’s fees for the defense of the action in the small claims court.
The plaintiff prayed for judgment declaring that “the defendants” were obligated to defend the suit in the small claims court, and for specific performance to require the insurer to so defend; that “the defendants”' were liable for any judgment obtained against the plaintiff in the small claims court action; that defendants be directed to reimburse plaintiff for attorney fees incurred by her in that action; that defendants be required to file necessary notices of insurance coverage with the Insurance Commissioner; and “that defendants be required to pay said medical expenses incurred in said accident.”
Though alleging as a conclusion that she was in doubt as to her rights under the policy, the amended complaint presented no-facts or circumstances reflecting a doubt as-to the meaning, interpretation or applicability of the policy or the coverage thereunder. Plaintiff alleged her purchase of the policy and attached a copy thereof, and alleged a breach of the contract. In our view the-chancellor was eminently correct in rejecting the suit as one not authorized under Chapter 87, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. for declaratory judgment. Barrett v. Pickard, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 630; Halpert v. Oleksy, Fla. 1953, 65-So.2d 762; Columbia Casualty Co. v. Zimmerman, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 338; Burns v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 84; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Couch, Fla. App.1964, 167 So.2d 786; M & E Land Company v. Siegel, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 769.
We find merit in the appellant’s contention that dismissal should not have been with prejudice. The point of inquiry is whether the second amended complaint stated facts upon which relief could be granted, other than that expressly prayed for. In dismissing the cause the chancellor concluded, and we agree, that no basis was shown for specific performance. If, as alleged, the insurer was guilty of breach of contract, by failure to defend the action brought against the plaintiff or to pay dam*864age claims asserted for medical expenses, etc., the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy at law for damages. However, the ultimate facts as to the items or amounts of damages claimed under the insurance contract were not set forth in the second amended complaint. That deficiency could have been cured by amendment. Therefore, the chancellor should have transferred the cause to the law side (of the circuit court or other law court suiting the jurisdictional amount claimed), or made the dismissal of the cause one without prejudice to proceed at law.
Accordingly we hold that the order of dismissal of the cause with prejudice should be modified to be a dismissal without prejudice, and as thus modified the order appealed from is affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am., Inc., 645 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…n remand plaintiff be given an opportunity to amend to plead an alternative claim under sections 448.101-448.105.5 See generally Fla. Const, art. V, § 2(a); Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d 717, - (Fla.1994); Swain v. Reliable Ins. Co., 200 So. 2d 862, 863-64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent herewith. . For present purposes, the allegations of the second amended complaint must be taken as true. . The part…
-
Burnerd Horwitz v. Grovpac, Inc., 286 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…intiff’s complaint, styled as an action for declaratory relief, as in fact an action for specific performance of the contract was correct. Garner v. DeSoto Ranch, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 150 So. 2d 493; Swain v. Reliable Insurance Company, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 862; New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Intercity Supply Corp., Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 110. Plaintiff argues that the chancellor erred in finding that he should have made a tender of the amount of the purchase price which he considered to be payable under the…
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. ALL Phase Interiors & Remodeling, Inc., 578 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…declaration of its rights as the issues are framed in its petition. We do not here address the appropriateness of the present allegations; we simply find at least the minimum requirements to justify some declaration. See Swain v. Reliable Ins. Co., 200 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Appellant is not precluded by our opinion from further amending its petition if that seems appropriate in the retrospection provided by the briefs and argument occasioned by this appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED. OWEN, WILLIAM C.,…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Columbia Cas. Co. v. Zimmerman, 62 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1952)
- Burns v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 157 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Couch, 167 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Barrett v. Pickard, 85 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1956)
- M & E Land Co. v. Siegel, 177 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)