JOE W. CORDELL, GEORGE S. TAFF AND HUGH E. WILLIAMS, JR. APPELLANTS,
v.
WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Appellants sued for both damages and rescission of an insurance contract. The trial court ordered them to elect between remedies before the defendant answered or discovery occurred. The appellate court reversed, holding that while plaintiffs cannot recover on inconsistent remedies simultaneously, election cannot be forced prematurely—it must occur closer to judgment, not before defendant's answer and discovery.
No. While a plaintiff may not ultimately recover on two inconsistent remedies and must elect prior to judgment, the trial court erred in requiring the election before discovery, before the defendant's answer, before pre-trial conference, and before evidence was taken.
[1] A party may plead and litigate inconsistent remedies.
[2] A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as they have, regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or equitable grounds or both.
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“Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.”
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) establishes that parties may plead inconsistent remedies in the alternative.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Cordell, Taff, and Williams filed a complaint against World Insurance Company seeking damages in one count and rescission in another. The t…
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 Mutually Exclusive Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Judge.
This is the third time this case has been before this court. (See Cordell v. World Insurance Co., 352 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) and Cordell v. World Insurance Co., 355 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), Opinion Filed February 24, 1978.) Appellants’ complaint sought damages in one count and recision in another. At the instance of appellee (defendant in the trial court) the learned trial judge entered an order prior to the filing by the defendant of any answer, requiring appellants (plaintiffs in the trial court) to elect which remedy they would pursue, the pertinent provision of the order being as follows:
“Plaintiffs are ordered to elect between the remedy of damages as set forth in Count II of the complaint and the remedy of recision as set forth in Count III of the complaint. To effect this election, plaintiffs are ordered to enter a notice of voluntary dismissal as to either Count II or Count III within seven (7) days of this order.”
The concluding paragraph of the order provided that the defendant should have twenty days from the date of the filing of the “notice of voluntary dismissal, as set forth above,” within which to plead to the amended complaint. Appellants concede that they may not proceed to judgment on two inconsistent counts, but urge that the learned trial judge erred in requiring the election prior to the defendant’s answer and prior to discovery.
Both parties rely upon Deemer v. Hallett Pontiac, Inc., 288 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974). In that case it was ordered that the plaintiff make an election of remedies “at the time the issue was at cause and ready for trial.” A substitute judge thereafter scheduled a pre-trial conference “and ordered that the plaintiff make an election of remedies, suspending discovery by plaintiff until such time as he elects his remedies.” The latter order was affirmed by the appellate court which stated:
“ * * * The two remedies sought by the plaintiff were not apposite. They were mutually exclusive. A claim for recision is predicated on disavowal of the contract. A claim for damages is based upon its affirmance.” (288 So. 2d 527-528)
However, we need not determine which position is supported by the Deemer case because our decision is controlled by Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.110. Section (b) of that rule provides that “Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.” Section (g) of the same rule provides: “A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as he has, regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or equitable grounds or both.” (Emphasis added)
Clearly a party may plead and litigate. inconsistent remedies. Equally clearly, a plaintiff may not recover on two or more judgments entered for the same wrong. Whether election must be required prior to trial, prior to judgment or prior to satisfaction (see 28 C.J.S. Election of Remedies § 3) we need not now determine because, as above stated, appellants have conceded that in this case they must elect prior to judgment. But the learned trial judge did err upon entering the order here appealed prior to discovery, prior to the defendant’s answer, prior to pre-trial conference and prior to the taking of evidence.
REVERSED.
McCORD, C. J., concurs.
MILLS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parsons v. Motor Homes OF Am., Inc., 465 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ns should be required to prove one remedy, if a plaintiff is entitled to one of several inconsistent remedies.” In Monco the Fifth District expressed the view that its holding was in agreement with this court’s position in Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 358 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), although acknowledging that the time at which a party must make an election of remedies was not expressly decided in Cordell. The Parsons’ second point for review involves the trial court’s statement of an inability to admit an…
-
Campbell v. Salman, 384 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…uestion3 plainly confers upon the sellers the option to sue the buyer for money damages. Moreover, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(g) permits a party to state alternative and inconsistent claims or defenses. Cordell v. World Insurance Company, 358 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). By asserting Count II of the complaint, the sellers simply opted for the alternative remedy of money damages authorized by the substantive law. Miller v. Rolfe, 97 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957). In this posture, the only quest…
-
Monco OF Orlando, Inc. v. ITT Indus. Credit Corp., 458 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…onsideration in the requirement that multiple actions should be required to provide one remedy, if a plaintiff is entitled to one of several inconsistent remedies. Although not specifically deciding the point, in Cordell v. World Insurance Company, 358 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the First District appears to have taken the same view we subscribe to. There, the specific holding was that the trial court erred in requiring an election between inconsistent remedies prior to the defendant filing an answer. I…
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
- Deemer v. Hallett Pontiac, Inc., 288 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 352 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 355 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)