ROBERT J. MONTANO, JOSEPH A. MONTANO, AND LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
VINCENT P. WIGFIELD, JR., 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 court held that discovery of insurance policy limits is now permissible in negligence cases where an insurer is joined as a defendant, reversing the prior rule established in Brooks v. Owens. The decision aligns with recent Florida Supreme Court precedent establishing that injured parties have direct causes of action against insurers as third-party beneficiaries.
Discovery of policy limits is now permissible as it is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, particularly where the liability insurance carrier is joined as a defendant. While policy limits may not be admissible at trial on issues of liability and damages, they may be relevant and admissible in separate trials against the insurance carrier.
[1] The existence or amount of liability insurance coverage is not admissible at trial on the issues of liability and damages.
[2] Discovery of liability insurance policy limits is permissible in tort actions when relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The existence or amount of insurance coverage has no bearing on the issues of liability and damages, and such evidence should not be considered by the jury.”
Establishes that while policy limits are discoverable, they remain inadmissible at trial on liability and damages issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVincent P. Wigfield, Jr. sued Robert J. Montano and Joseph A. Montano for damages from negligent automobile operation and joined their liability insur…
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 Direct Action Against Insurer cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari from an order of the Circuit Court.
The respondent, Vincent P. Wigfield, Jr., sued the defendants, Montano, for damages allegedly resulting from the negligent operation of an automobile. The plaintiff joined the defendants’ liability insurance company, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, as a party-defendant in the cause. The existence of a liability policy was admitted. Plaintiff then filed an interrogatory to the defendants requesting that they set forth the limits of liability in the policy as it applied to the plaintiff. Defendants objected to the interrogatory and after a *610hearing the trial judge overruled the objection and required defendants to answer it within twenty days. Defendants seek certiorari and assert that the order is contrary to the essential requirements of law.
In 1957 the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the policy limits in a defendant’s automobile liability insurance policy were not a proper subject matter for discovery by the plaintiff in a negligence suit arising from an automobile collision case. Brooks v. Owens, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 693.
In 1969 it held that an injured party has a direct cause of action against the insurer as a third party beneficiary under an automobile liability insurance policy which the defendant carries with his insurance company. Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla.1969, 223 So.2d 713.
In Beta Eta House Corporation, Inc. v. Gregory, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 495 the First District Court of Appeal extended this rule to premises liability insurance companies and suggested a procedure for handling the trial of these cases.
In Beta Eta House Corporation, Inc. v. Gregory, Fla.1970, 237 So.2d 163, filed July 1, 1970, the Supreme Court of Florida said:
“(a) The principles announced in Shingleton v. Bussey, supra, are applicable not only to automobile liability insurance but also to other forms of liability insurance; and
(b) The trial court may on motion of either party order separate trials pursuant to Rule 1.270(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, in those cases where the liability insurance carrier is joined as a defendant in a tort action against its insured.”
Finally it said:
“The purpose of Shingleton v. Bussey, supra, was to require the parties to ‘lay their cards on the table’ in discovery proceedings, settlement negotiations, and pre-trial hearings. The existence or amount of insurance coverage has no bearing on the issues of liability and damages, and such evidence should not be considered by the jury.” Emphasis added.
Under Rule 1.280, R.C.P., 30 F.S.A., and the foregoing authorities it appears that the discovery of policy limits in proper cases is now permissible as it is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. While it may not be admissible at' the trial bearing on the issues of liability and damages, it may be relevant and admissible in the event there is a separate trial against the insurance carrier. See Duran v. McPherson, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 639.
The petition for writ of certiorari is, therefore,
Denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clonts, 248 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…e issues in the case. Certification of such question is hereby ordered. PIERCE, C. J., concurs. . 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1969). . 237 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1970). . Id. at 166. . Note 1, mpra, at p. 718. . See, also, Montano v. Wigfield, (Fla.App.1970) 239 So. 2d 609. . Note 2, supra, at p. 165. . Id. . (Fla.App.1970), 239 So. 2d 46, 48. . Of. Stecher, et al v. Pomeroy (Fla.App.1971), 244 So. 2d 488. . See Authors’ Comment to Rule 1.270, R.O.P., 30 F.S.A. 371. . See, also, Durrett v. Davidson, note 8, supr…
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)
- Beta ETA House Corp. v. Gregory, 237 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1970)
- Maxwell J. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1957)
- Beta ETA House Corp. v. Gregory, 230 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Duran v. McPHERSON, 233 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)