GUSTAV KRATZ AND GRANGE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
GARRY V. NEWSOM, 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 Florida Supreme Court addressed whether an insurance company must be severed from trial when joined as a party defendant under Shingleton v. Bussey. The Court held that absent a justiciable insurance issue such as a coverage dispute, severance should not be granted, and affirmed the District Court's decision denying severance.
The Court held that absent a justiciable insurance issue relating to coverage or interpretation of the insurance policy, there is no valid reason to sever an insurance company from trial, and the motion to sever should be denied. The denial of severance was proper.
[1] A motion to sever an insurance company as a party defendant should not be granted absent a justiciable issue relating to insurance, such as a question of coverage or inte…
[2] The presence of an insurance company as a party defendant should not be disclosed to the jury unless there is a valid reason for its involvement in the trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“absent a justiciable issue relating to insurance, such as a question of coverage or of the applicability or interpretation of the insurance policy or other such valid dispute on the matter of insurance coverage, there is no valid reason for a severance and it should NOT be granted”
Establishes the legal standard for when severance of an insurance company defendant is proper
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn insurance company was joined as a party defendant in litigation pursuant to Shingleton v. Bussey. The defendant moved to sever the insurance compan…
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.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported at 251 So.2d 539, a decision certified to this Court as one passing on a question of great public interest, to-wit:
“Is it reversible error to deny a motion to sever from trial an insurance company joined as party defendant pursuant to Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla. 1969, 223 So.2d 713, where the record does not show any specific reason either for the presence of the insurance company or for excluding it at trial from the jury’s knowledge of its involvement?”
Respondent, in a motion for discharge of the writ of certiorari, points out that the question certified has already been answered by this Court in Stecher v. Pomeroy, 253 So.2d 421, opinion filed October 20, 1971, wherein this Court stated:
“There are some instances where there is a question of coverage when a severance would be quite proper to try those issues separately, and the severance would be under this rule, as there pointed out. However, the remainder of that opinion holds, and we hereby reaffirm, that absent a justiciable issue relating to insurance, such as a question of coverage or of the applicability or interpretation of the insurance policy or other such valid dispute on the matter of insurance coverage, there is no valid reason for a severance and it should NOT be granted.”
Oral argument is dispensed with pursuant to Rule 3.10, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A. The question certified has been answered in the Stecher case, supra, and the decision of the District Court is in accord with Stecher and should not be disturbed.
Accordingly, writ of certiorari is discharged.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oldham v. Rooks, 361 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1978)…8 (1939). Nevertheless, when the legislature makes a complete revision of a subject it serves as an implied repeal of earlier acts dealing with the same subject unless an intent to the contrary is shown. Orange City Water Co. v. Town of Orange City, 255 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1971); State v. Newell, 85 So. 2d 124 (Fla.1956); Brevard County v. Board of Public Instruction of Brevard County, 159 Fla. 869, 33 So. 2d 54 (1947). It could be argued that there was a continued field of operation for Section 839.07, Florida S…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Amrep Corp., 358 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1978)…ted above, it contends that as to the third ground, this Court has found a presumption in favor of an implied repealer, where there is a complete and general revision of a subject by the legislature. See Orange City Water Co. v. Town of Orange City, 255 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1971); State v. Newell, 85 So. 2d 124 (Fla.1956); Brevard County v. Board of Public Instruction, 159 Fla. 869, 33 So. 2d 54 (1947); Realty Bond and Share Co. v. Englar, 104 Fla. 329, 143 So. 152 (1932). Appellant concedes that Department of Rev…
-
DeBOLT v. The Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 427 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…evertheless found that when the legislature makes a complete revision of a subject it serves as an implied repeal of earlier acts dealing with the same subject unless an intent to the contrary is shown. Orange City Water Co. v. Town of Orange City, 255 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1971); State v. Newell, 85 So. 2d 124 [*226] (Fla.1956); Brevard County v. Board of Public Instruction of Brevard County, 159 Fla. 869, 33 So. 2d 54 (1947). Id. at 143. The continuing vitality of the Oldham decision was evidenced by the court’…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 253 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1971)
- Gustav Kratz & Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Newsom, 251 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)