Lantana Insurance, Ltd. v. Thornton
118 So. 3d 250
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lantana Insurance seeks certiorari review of a trial court order denying its motion to dismiss a third-party complaint for declaratory judgment.
- Section 627.4136 requires a settlement or verdict against an insured before a third party can sue an insurer; the statute’s conditions were argued to be unmet.
- Abdujalalova and husband sued Thornton for negligence; Alfa Insurance seeks a declaration of coverage; Lantana failed to join or file a separate declaratory action.
- Abdujalalova and husband filed the third-party complaint against Lantana in Alfa’s declaratory judgment action.
- Lantana moved to dismiss, arguing §627.4136(1) bars third-party claims absent settlement/verdict; the court denied the motion and abated the action.
- The appellate issue is whether certiorari review is appropriate to challenge denial of the dismissal under §627.4136 and whether the presuit requirements were met, given no settlement or verdict against Thornton.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is certiorari review appropriate here? | Mathieu: presuit failure warrants certiorari | Lantana contends certiorari lies only in limited circumstances | Yes; certiorari is appropriate when presuit requirements are not met. |
| Have presuit requirements of §627.4136(1) been met? | Abdujalalova/Spouse: no settlement or verdict against insured | Lantana: requires settlement/verdict against insured before action accrues | No settlement or verdict exists; requirements not met. |
| Should the third-party complaint have been dismissed? | Lantana: no accrual due to lack of settlement/verdict | Abdujalalova/Spouse: potential coverage action against insurer | Yes; the third-party complaint should have been dismissed. |
| Does lack of beneficial interest defeat accrual under the statute? | N/A | N/A | Undisputed lack of beneficial interest means no accrual. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Owners Ins. Co. v. Mathieu, 67 So.3d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (certiorari appropriate when presuit requirements not met; irreparable harm from forced litigation)
- Universal Sec. Ins. Co. v. Spreadbury, 524 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (certiorari review for denial of dismissal when presuit requirements are not met)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Moffett, 513 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (presuit requirements apply to accrual against insurer)
- Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Boran Craig Barber Engel Constr. Co., 895 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (policyholder-interest and accrual considerations in presuit context)