MARGARET K. STELLA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARVIN CRAINE ET AL., 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.
In this negligence action, the jury awarded the plaintiff $13,500 against all defendants including the liability insurer. The trial court entered an amended final judgment reducing the insurer's liability to its policy limits of $10,000. The plaintiff appealed, claiming the amended judgment was improper, but the court affirmed, finding the original judgment was a clerical mistake that could be corrected under the applicable rules.
The court properly amended the final judgment under Rule 1.540(b) because the entry of judgment for $13,500 against the insurer when all parties knew its liability was limited to $10,000 was a clerical mistake or oversight, not a matter of deliberate fraud. The amendment was proper because there was no dispute about the policy limits, and the insured did not object to the amendment.
[1] A court may amend a final judgment to correct a clerical mistake or oversight, even if the motion to amend is filed more than 10 days after the entry of judgment, if the…
[2] A trial court has the discretion to amend a final judgment to conform to known policy limits when the initial judgment erroneously exceeds those limits due to oversight o…
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“the entry of the judgment for $13,500.00 against the insurer when all parties had known that the insurer's liability was limited to $10,000.00, was due to oversight or clerical mistake”
Establishes the court's basis for finding a clerical error justifying amendment under Rule 1.540(b)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret Stella obtained a jury verdict of $13,500 against defendant Marvin Craine and his liability insurer in an automobile negligence action. The i…
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
In this automobile negligence action the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $13,500.00 against all defendants, including the liability insurer. A judgment was entered thereon, but subsequently the court entered an amended final judgment reducing the judgment as against the insurer to the sum of $10,000.00, its policy limits. It is the entry of this amended final judgment which the plaintiff claims on this appeal to be error.
When the insurer filed an answer to the complaint, it admitted the issuance of the liability policy insuring the defendant-owner for all sums which he might be found legally obligated to pay, up to the limits of the policy. The policy limits were not alleged. At a subsequent date the defendants jointly filed a motion for severance of the insurer, which motion stated (1) there was no policy issues between the defendants, and (2) the insurer agreed that should a verdict be returned in favor of the plaintiff, judgment could be entered thereon against the insurer to the extent of the limits of its policy. Again the limits were not disclosed. On plaintiff’s motion to produce, the insurer was twice ordered to produce a copy of the policy, but failed to do so. Nonetheless, at the pretrial conference defendant’s counsel put plaintiff’s counsel on notice of the $10,000.00 policy limit.
After the jury verdict was returned, the defendants timely filed a motion for new trial. While this motion was still pending, plaintiff’s counsel caused to be prepared a final judgment against all defendants in the amount of $13,500.00, and had the court enter the judgment on January 26, 1972. On March 6, the court entered the order denying the motion for new trial. On March 14, defendants filed their motion to amend the final judgment so as to reduce the amount of judgment against the insurer to the policy limits of $10,000.00.
Appellant first contends that the motion to amend the final judgment, having been filed more than 10 days after entry of the judgment, could only be entertained by the court under Rule 1.540(b) RCP, 31 F.S.A. and that the motion to amend failed to comply with this rule. While the motion did not specify that it was filed pursuant to this rule, it was readily apparent to the court that the entry of the judgment for $13,500.00 against the insurer when all parties had known that the insurer’s liability was limited to *586$10,000.00, was due to oversight or clerical mistake. Plaintiffs counsel caused the final judgment to be prepared. Since he knew that the insurer’s liability under the policy was only $10,000.00, causing judgment to be entered against the insurer for $13,500.00 would have to be either an oversight or clerical mistake on the one hand, or a deliberate fraud on the court on the other. There is certainly not the slightest suggestion of any attempt at deliberate fraud.
Appellant next contends that even if the court had jurisdiction to entertain the motion under Rule 1.540(b) RCP, it was error for the court not to follow the procedure outlined in Williams v. Banning, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 725. The cited case is factually distinguishable. Not only did it involve a controversy between the insured and the insurer as to the policy limits, but also the insurer’s motion to limit the judgment against it was granted without any proof as to the policy limits and without any opportunity for the insured to be heard on that issue. In the instant case the insured did not disagree as to the policy limits, and a certified copy of the policy was produced for examination by the court and plaintiff’s counsel before the court entered the amended final judgment. We find no error here and affirm the amended final judgment.
Having decided the appellate issues presented, anything additional we might add is necessarily dictum. Nonetheless, we are constrained to suggest that routinely, in cases of this type where no coverage questions have arisen, the court should require counsel to make full verified disclosure at pretrial conference of applicable policy limits. The pretrial order could' then incorporate this information as a finding to govern the subsequent entry of judgment.
Affirmed.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Quinn v. Truman Alan Millard, 358 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ain a copy of the policy itself. Therefore we direct that, on remand, the trial court shall verify the policy limits and incorporate its finding on this point to govern a modification of the judgment against Allstate and Quinn. See Stella v. Craine, 281 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). And cf. Williams v. Banning, 259 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (where an insured contests his policy limits and no proof of those limits is in evidence, the filing of a cross claim is the proper procedure). The court shall then…
-
Ward W. Kelly v. Williams, 411 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…s potential liability for bad faith negotiations. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shilling, 374 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Quinn v. Millard, 358 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Soler v. Kukula, 297 So. 2d 600 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Stella v. Craine, 281 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied, 289 So. 2d 731 (Fla.1974). However, where allegations of bad faith negotiations exist, the Third District Court has required the insurance company to file a Williams cross-claim, and thus has impliedly allowed the…
-
Soler v. Kukula, 297 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…nt was a copy of the subject insurance policy and affidavit of defendant’s claims manager. Thus, we hold the trial judge was correct in limiting defendant insurer’s liability to $10,000, the limits of the policy. See Stella v. Craine, Fla.App. 1973, 281 So. 2d 584. On cross-appeal, cross-appellants contend the court erred in denying defense counsel access to the investigative report and personal notes and records of Officer James for the purpose of cross-examination after the officer had testified from these…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Banning, 259 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)