FLORENCE A. SHERMAN AND EDITH ELIZABETH SHERMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILBUR C. HOLZAPFEL, 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.
The appellants, defendants in an automobile negligence action, appealed an interlocutory order permitting the plaintiff to amend the complaint to add the defendants' liability insurance carrier as a party defendant and to produce the insurance policy for inspection. The court affirmed, holding that the Shermans lacked standing to raise constitutional objections on behalf of the insurance carrier and that Shingleton v. Bussey had settled the constitutional validity of this procedural innovation.
The court affirmed the interlocutory order, holding that the defendants lacked standing to raise constitutional objections on behalf of the insurance carrier and that the Supreme Court's decision in Shingleton v. Bussey had resolved all constitutional questions regarding the joinder of liability insurance carriers as party defendants in automobile negligence cases.
[1] In automobile accident cases, a plaintiff may join the defendant's automobile liability insurance carrier as a party defendant.
[2] A party cannot raise constitutional objections that belong solely to another party who is not before the court.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“they cannot speak for the carrier, nor press legal contentions which belong solely to the carrier”
Establishes that defendants lacked standing to raise constitutional objections on behalf of the insurance carrier.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilbur C. Holzapfel filed an automobile negligence action against Florence A. Sherman and Edith Elizabeth Sherman. Holzapfel moved to file an amended …
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 Automobile Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal by appellants Florence A. Sherman and Edith Elizabeth Sherman, defendants in the Court below, from an order permitting appellee Wilbur C. Holzapfel, plaintiff below, to file an amended complaint in an automobile negligence case, adding Michigan Mutual Liability Company as an additional party defendant and granting a motion requiring the production of a liability insurance policy for inspection and copying.
The motions had been filed by plaintiff Holzapfel pursuant to the Supreme Court opinion in Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla.1969, *551223 So.2d 713, which now permits, in automobile accident cases, the inclusion of the defendant’s automobile liability insurance carrier as a party defendant.
The Shermans contended in the lower Court, and now contend here, that the order of the lower Court, predicated admittedly upon Shingleton, denies the insurance carrier, Michigan Mutual Liability Company, equal protection of the laws, denies the carrier due process of law, and impairs the obligation of its insurance contract with the Shermans, all in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions.
Such argument is clearly untenable. In the first place, the carrier is not even yet a party to the cause and is therefore not complaining. And while the Shermans might not look with approval upon the carrier being joined as a party defendant, they cannot speak for the carrier, nor press legal contentions which belong solely to the carrier. It is not inconceivable that the carrier might in fact not be averse to being made a party defendant. Certainly, however, it is a matter of judgment personal to the carrier.
In the second place, the Circuit Court and this Court must presume such constitutional objections to have been laid at rest by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Shingleton. In that case the State high Court held that insurance carriers could be made parties defendant in automobile accident liability cases where the principal defendants have insurance coverage. It must be presumed that the Supreme Court carefully considered all constitutional objections to such landmark holding and negated the same. The doctrine announced in Shingleton cannot be relitigated or reconsidered either in the Circuit Court or here.
The interlocutory order appealed is therefore—
Affirmed.
LILES, Acting C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. Bowling, 233 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…from the essential requirements of the' law. See Beta Eta House Corporation v. Gregory, Fla.App.1970, 230 So. 2d 495; Shipman v. Kinderman, First [*416] District Court of Appeal, 232 So. 2d 21; Sherman v. Holzapfel, Second District Court of Appeal, 231 So. 2d 550. The order denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint is reversed with directions to allow the amendment.…
Authorities Cited
- Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1969)
- Gulf Stream Motors, Inc. v. Christina Cook & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1969)