ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN ANDERSON ET AL., 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.
Allstate Insurance Company appealed the dismissal of its declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of its duty to defend and provide coverage under an insurance policy. The court affirmed the dismissal but modified it to be without prejudice and struck the trial court's declaration of rights, holding that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts showing a bona fide, actual, present, practical need for declaratory relief.
The complaint failed to establish a bona fide, actual, present, practical need for declaratory relief because it did not allege the present status of the underlying action or that Allstate had refused to defend or denied coverage. While dismissal was proper, it should have been without prejudice to allow amendment, and the trial court erred in declaring the rights of the parties in its dismissal order.
[1] A complaint for declaratory relief must establish a bona fide, actual, present, practical need for a declaration of the parties' rights.
[2] A trial court should not declare the rights of parties in an order of dismissal when the complaint fails to state a proper cause of action for declaratory relief.
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 complaint as presently framed fails to establish a bona fide, actual, present, practical need for a declaration of the rights of the parties under Chapter 86, Florida Statutes (1977), as interpreted in May v. Holley”
Establishes the legal standard for declaratory relief and the basis for affirming the dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllstate filed a declaratory decree action seeking a declaration regarding its duty to defend a pending tort action involving an automobile accident a…
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 Insurance Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
By this appeal we are asked to review the propriety of an order granting a motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action filed in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. We affirm the order appealed from with two modifications: (1) the dismissal herein, to the extent that it was made with prejudice, is stricken; and (2) the order declaring the rights of the parties is stricken. In our view, the complaint as presently framed fails to establish a bona fide, actual, present, practical need for a declaration of the rights of the parties under Chapter 86, Florida Statutes (1977), as interpreted in May v. Holley, 59 So. 2d 636, 639 (Fla.1952).
The plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company filed this declaratory decree action seeking a declaration of rights as to (1) its duty to defend a certain tort action involving an automobile accident, and (2) the coverage of its insurance policy as to the accident which was the subject of such tort action. The complaint alleges that such tort action is presently pending in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida and has been so pending for at least one year. The complaint fails to allege, however the present status of that action. There is no allegation as to whether Allstate has refused to defend such action or has denied coverage in such action. In the absence of such allegations, the complaint fails to show that there is a bona fide, actual, present, practical need for a declaration of the rights of the parties. Accordingly, the trial court was eminently correct in dismissing this complaint but should have done so without prejudice to the plaintiff to properly amend his complaint for declaratory relief.
It is axiomatic that the trial court should not have declared the rights of the parties in its order of dismissal because the complaint failed to state a proper cause of action for any declaratory relief under Chapter 86, Florida Statutes (1977). As the complaint was subject to dismissal without prejudice, it was improper to fashion a declaratory decree herein. Cowne v. Weber, 257 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Countryside Christian Ctr., Inc. v. City OF Clearwater, 542 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…So. 2d 1372, 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Thus, although the trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, it should have done so without prejudice to appellant to amend. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Anderson, 360 So. 2d 473, 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Affirmed in part and reversed in part for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. DANAHY and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Cowne v. James E. Weber ad litem of the Estate of Robert R. Snodgrass, 257 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)