FLORIDA GAS COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' 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.
Florida Gas Company appeals from a declaratory judgment against it, arguing the trial court lacked proper jurisdiction and that only factual issues were involved. The court affirmed, holding that as an intervenor in the action, Florida Gas Company was bound by the subordination rule under Florida intervention law and could not challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff's pleadings or the propriety of the proceeding.
An intervenor in Florida litigation is bound by Rule 1.230, Fla.R.Civ.P., which requires that intervention be 'in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding.' Therefore, an intervenor cannot challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff's pleadings, the propriety of the procedure, or move to dismiss the cause without permission of the court, even if those challenges would normally be available to the original parties.
“the law is settled that an intervenor is bound by the record made at the time he intervenes and must take the suit as he finds it. He cannot contest the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, but is limited to an assertion of his right to the res. He cannot challenge sufficiency of the pleadings or the propriety of the procedure, nor can he move to dismiss or delay the cause without permission of the chancellor.”
Establishes the binding principle that intervenors in Florida are subordinate to the main proceeding and cannot challenge pleadings or procedure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTropical Construction Co. gave notice of an accident to its insurer, American Employers' Insurance Company, three years after the accident occurred. A…
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 Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Florida Gas Company appeals from a final declaratory judgment for the plaintiff below, The American Employers’ Insurance Company. It also assigns as error the entry of an order denying its motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory decree.
The final judgment held “that the giving of notice by Tropical Construction Co. three years after the accident upon which Florida Gas Company bases its suit in Case No. 64L 3254 is not notice as soon as practicable, as a matter of law;” and relieved the insurance company of all duties and liabilities under its policies of insurance with Tropical Construction Corporation, its insured.
The insurance company [appellee] concedes that under ordinary circumstances this final judgment would be subject to reversal under the rule stated by the Supreme Court of Florida in Bergh v. Canadian Universal Insurance Company, 216 So.2d 436, 1968; to the effect that when only factual issues are involved they may not be determined by a declaratory judgment action. See also Burns v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 84.
Appellee says that notwithstanding this rule, the gas company was an intervenor in this litigation and is bound by Rule 1.230, Fla.R.Civ.P., 30 F.S.A., which states:
“Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert his right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety *198 of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion.” (Emphasis added)
Under this rule and the cases which have construed it, the insurance company argues that the gas company [intervenor] cannot challenge the propriety of the main proceedings or the sufficiency of its pleadings. This appears to be the rule in Florida. See United States v. State of Florida, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 890; Singletary v. Mann, Fla.1946, 157 Fla. 37, 24 So.2d 718, 166 A.L.R. 904; Krouse v. Palmer, 131 Fla. 444, 179 So. 762 (1938).
The Supreme Court of Florida in construing a 1931 chancery act which contained the same provision as Rule 1.230, said in Krouse, supra:
“The law is settled that an intervenor is bound by the record made at the time he intervenes and must take the suit as he finds it. He cannot contest the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, but is limited to an assertion of his right to the res. He cannot challenge sufficiency of the pleadings or the propriety of the procedure, nor can he move to dismiss or delay the cause without permission of the chancellor.” (Emphasis supplied)
The gas company argues that it has a right to challenge the “jurisdiction” of a court at any time. It relies on federal decisions for this authority. However, the corresponding federal intervention rule omits the requirement in the state rule that intervention must be in subordination to and in recognition of the propriety of the main proceeding. Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. In addition, the question involved herein does not actually go to jurisdiction over the subject matter of the person but is directed to the failure of the plaintiff’s complaint to state a cause of action.
For • these reasons the final decree is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Faircloth v. MR. Boston Distiller Corp. & Hartley & Parker, Inc., 245 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1970)…other corporation which is engaged directly or indirectly in bottling spirituous liquors in any state other than the state of Florida.” . See Krouse v. Palmer, 131 Fla. 444, 179 So. 762 (1938) ; Florida Gas Co. v. American Employers’ Insurance Co., 218 So. 2d 197 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969) ; and United States v. State of Florida, 179 So. 2d 890 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1965). 39 Am. Jur. Parties § 61 (1942), and cases cited therein. . "Laws. Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected th…
-
State Tr. Realty, LLC v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. Americas for the holders of the Dover Mortg. Cap. Corp., 207 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…30 in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the intervener’s petition to stay entry of a final judgment which ensued after default had been entered against the original defendant); Fla. Gas Co. v. Am. Emp’rs’ Ins. Co., 218 So. 2d 197, 197-98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (citing rule 1.230 and Krouse in holding that the intervener could not challenge the propriety of the main proceedings or the sufficiency of the plaintiffs pleadings); see also Arsali v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 79 So. 3d 845…
-
British Aviation Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Menut, 511 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…right to the res. He cannot challenge sufficiency of the pleadings or the propriety of the procedure, nor can he move to dismiss or delay the cause without permission of the chancellor.” Florida Gas Company v. American Employers’ Insurance Company, 218 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). While we have held that the trial court should have exercised its discretion in favor of allowing intervention of British Aviation, we do not find an abuse of discretion or error by the trial court when it denied British Av…
Authorities Cited
- White v. BAY Dredging & Constr. Co., 216 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1968)
- United States v. State of Fla. & Cnty. of Dade, 179 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Krouse v. Julta M. Palmer, 131 Fla. 444 (Fla. 1938)
- Singletary v. Mann, 157 Fla. 37 (Fla. 1946)
- Burns v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 157 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)