Geico General Ins. Co. v. Martinez
240 So. 3d 43
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Martinez was injured in 2009 in an accident involving Guevara, insured by GEICO; GEICO policy covered $10,000 per person and $20,000 per occurrence.
- Martinez sued Guevara for negligence in 2009; in 2016 she sought to add GEICO as a defendant and to assert a third-party bad-faith claim against GEICO.
- The trial court granted the motion to add GEICO and to file the third-party bad-faith claim, despite GEICO's motion to dismiss.
- Martinez conceded the bad-faith claim was unaccrued and premature under the nonjoinder statute and would accrue only after settlement or verdict against Guevara.
- The trial court abated rather than dismissed the unaccrued third-party bad-faith claim; GEICO petitioned for certiorari, which was granted and the abatement was quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is abatement proper for an unaccrued third-party bad-faith claim under the nonjoinder statute | Martinez argues trial court discretion supports abatement | GEICO contends the claim is premature and must be dismissed until condition precedent is met | Abatement is improper; dismissal required; statute controls |
| Does the nonjoinder statute bar accrual of a third-party bad-faith claim until settlement or verdict against the insured | Martinez asserts the claim should be allowed to proceed in abated form | Statute requires the condition precedent before accrual or maintenance | Statute controls; third-party bad-faith claim cannot accrue or be maintained yet |
| Is Seville Place inapplicable to this third-party bad-faith context | Seville Place supports abatement in some first-party contexts | Seville Place is inapplicable to third-party claims under nonjoinder | Seville Place inapplicable; statute applies |
| Does Lantana Insurance, Ltd. v. Thornton control the outcome | Lantana supports abatement | Lantana supports dismissal to protect statutory right | Lantana controls; favors dismissal without prejudice |
| Do irreparable-harm and certiorari standards justify quashing the abatement order | Improper application of nonjoinder causes irreparable harm | Abatement avoided to preserve rights | Abatement constitutes departure from essential law; certiorari granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lantana Insurance, Ltd. v. Thornton, 118 So. 3d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (irreparable harm when misapplying nonjoinder statute; dismissal appropriate)
- Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. v. Morris, 155 So. 3d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (trial court error in applying nonjoinder supports certiorari relief)
- State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Seville Place Condominium Association, Inc., 74 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (first-party claim; Seville Place not applicable to third-party nonjoinder)
- Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. San Perdido Association, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 2012) (relevance to nonjoinder considerations (third-party context))