JAMES KASSNER ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, LICENSED AND AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court reversed a dismissal of an insurance claim brought by partners as members of a partnership entity, holding that separate actions by different legal entities (individual owners vs. partnership) arising from the same loss do not constitute impermissible splitting of causes of action.
Dismissal was error. While the general rule requires that all damages from a single wrongful act must be claimed in one action, separate independent causes of action under an insurance contract that have accrued to two different legal entities (individual owners vs. partnership) may be brought in separate actions despite arising from a single wrong or contract.
[1] A single wrongful act generally requires all damages to be claimed in one action to avoid splitting causes of action.
[2] Separate and independent causes of action arising from a single insurance contract, even if held by different parties or entities, may be brought in separate lawsuits.
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“In the first action the Kassners enforced the cause of action held by them individually as the insured property owners. The second action was not brought by them in their individual capacity, but was by and for the separate partnership entity.”
Establishes the distinction between the two actions as brought by different legal entities
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Kassners and others were members of Maternity Modes partnership. An insurance policy issued by Travelers Indemnity Company insured both the partne…
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 Separate Legal Entities cases and more on FLexlaw
CARROLL, Judge.
A policy issued by the appellee insured Maternity Modes, a partnership of which James and Erna Kassner and others were members, and also insured James and Erna Kassner as owners of the building and warehouse in which the partnership conducted a business. Following destruction by fire the Kassners (owners) filed an action against the insurer for recovery for loss of the building. Thereafter action was brought by the Kassners as members of and for the partnership, for business interruption loss sustained by the partnership. The court granted a motion of the insurer, and dismissed the second action, on the ground of splitting of causes of action. This appeal ensued.
The appellants contend, and we agree, that dismissal thereof on such ground was error. In the first action the Kassners enforced the cause of action held by them individually as the insured property owners. The second action was not brought by them in their individual capacity, but was by and for the separate partnership entity. See Gaynon v. Statum, 151 Fla. 793, 10 So. 2d 432; Carol Management Corporation v. Maxwell Company, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 773. In those cases the Supreme Court and this court, speaking with reference to splitting of causes of action, stated that as a general rule the law mandatorily requires that all damages sustained or acruing to one as a result of a single wrongful act must be claimed and recovered in one action or not at all. The fact that separate independent causes of action under an insurance contract may have arisen and accrued to two different parties or entities from a single wrong or under one contract, does not preclude, but on the contrary requires their bringing separate actions thereon. Atlanta & St. A. B. Ry. Co. v. Thomas, 60 Fla. 412, 53 So. 510.
For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Unijax, Inc. v. Factory Ins. Ass'n, 328 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…mical, supra, that claims of various entities, even though interrelated, must be treated separately, and that the rights of each must be maintained in separate actions, is in accord with Florida law. (Kassner v. Travelers Ind. Co., Fla.App.3rd 1973, 285 So. 2d 686) In the latter case, our sister court said: “The fact that separate independent causes of action under an insurance contract may have arisen and accrued to two different parties or entities from a single wrong or under one contract, does not preclu…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Gaynon v. Statum, 151 Fla. 793 (Fla. 1942)
- Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Ry. Co. v. Thomas, 60 Fla. 412 (Fla. 1910)
- Carol Mgmt. Corp. v. The Maxwell Co., Inc., 156 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)