Liberty Insurance Corp. v. Milne
98 So. 3d 613
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Litersky sued Milne for negligence arising from a motor vehicle collision; Milne was found liable and later awarded damages, with the trial court denying motions for new trial; a final judgment was entered on February 1, 2012.
- Liberty Insurance, Milne’s liability insurer, was joined only for purposes of the nonjoinder statute, Fla. Stat. § 627.4136.
- On February 1, 2012 the final judgment awarded Litersky $50,000 against Liberty and capped total recovery against Liberty and Milne at $1,018,535.90.
- Milne served Liberty with process on February 10, 2012 after Liberty’s limited joinder; Milne then filed a pleading labeled a crossclaim against Liberty that the parties treated as a third-party complaint.
- Liberty moved to dismiss the third-party complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since it was filed after entry of final judgment; the trial court abated the action rather than dismissing it.
- The appellate issue concerns whether the trial court loses jurisdiction after final judgment and after the time to seek rehearing or a new trial has expired, preventing a new claim against Liberty within the tort case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over Milne’s third-party complaint against Liberty post-judgment. | Milne argues the crossclaim/third-party action is permissible while appellate remedies are pursued. | Liberty contends jurisdiction is lost after final judgment and expiration of time for rehearing/new trial, so the third-party action is a nullity. | Yes; the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the post-judgment third-party claim. |
| Whether abating the third-party action was proper instead of dismissing. | Milne sought abatement to permit continuation during appeal. | Liberty urged dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction; abatement was inappropriate to preserve the action. | Abatement does not cure lack of jurisdiction to entertain the claim; dismissal would have been proper. |
| Whether Milne’s service of process on Liberty affected jurisdiction or revived the underlying action. | Milne served process; this could give life to a separate action. | Service after judgment cannot revive or validate a post-judgment crossclaim within the tort case. | Service did not revive jurisdiction; the post-judgment claim was a nullity. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Am. Home Ins. Co. v. Seay, 355 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (trial court loses jurisdiction after judgment and expiration of rehearing/new trial period)
- Gen. Capital Corp. v. Tel Serv. Co., 212 So.2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (jurisdiction limits after entry of final judgment)
- City of Boca Raton v. Ross Hofmann Assocs., Inc., 501 So.2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (amendment or relief after final judgment without proper authority)
- DiPaolo v. Rollins Leasing Corp., 700 So.2d 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (post-judgment motions; reserved rulings cannot survive after time for rehearing expires)
- Fla. Nat’l Bank v. Domanska, 486 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (amendments after denial of rehearing; lack of jurisdiction to disturb final judgment)