MANCHESTER INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HAL ALLEN MATHEWS 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of an insurer's interpleader action seeking to enjoin injured parties from suing, holding that such injunctive relief is not a recognized cause of action in Florida.
An insurer cannot maintain an interpleader action seeking to enjoin injured parties from commencing or prosecuting suits against it based on policy coverage limits.
[1] An insurer may not use interpleader to obtain an injunction preventing injured parties from suing on an automobile liability policy, even though strict interpleader actio…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManchester Insurance insured Hal Allen Mathews under an automobile liability policy with $10,000 per-person and $20,000 aggregate coverage. Mathews ne…
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 Multiplicity Of Suits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Manchester Insurance and Indemnity Company, was the insurer of appellee, Hal Allen Mathews under an automobile liability policy. Appellant filed an interpleader action against its insured, Mathews, along with several other parties, and their respective insurance companies, who claimed personal injuries in an automobile accident which was the result of the negligent operation of a vehicle driven by Mathews. According to the interpleader complaint the policy had maximum liability coverage of $10,000 for each person, with an aggregate coverage of $20,000.
This is an interlocutory appeal from the order of the trial court dismissing appellant’s cause of action, finding, inter alia, that no such cause of action existed in Florida. There is, of course, abundant case authority allowing and encouraging the filing of strict interpleader actions. The reason for which is clear — to avoid multiplicity of suits. The instant action is in the nature of a bill of interpleader suit, but is not one of strict interpleader filing. The appellant sought, as relief, an order enjoining the injured parties from commencing or prosecuting any action or suit against appellant arising out of the automobile accident.
After consideration of the record and briefs, in light of the applicable case law, we find no reason to disturb the ruling of the trial court. Accordingly, we
Affirm.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delida Hernandez and Matias Hernandez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 356 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…may be liable to several persons because of the negligence of its insured, to file an action in the nature of a bill of interpleader. We hold that such an action may not be maintained in Florida. See Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co. v. Mathews, 312 So. 2d 777 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). Because the appellee, Travelers Insurance Company, urges that the authority cited is not applicable, we must briefly set out the factual background. On August 27, 1975, Juana Serra Castro was involved in an automobile accident wh…1 / 2