Haag v. PhillipsHaag v. Phillips
George O. Kluttz of Pavese, Shields, Garner, Haverfield & Kluttz, Fort Myers, for appellant.
James A. Franklin, Jr., of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Fort Myers, for appellees.
Plaintiff/appellant Haag was a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by defendant/appellee Phillips. He sustained injuries when thеir car collided with an uninsured motor vehicle. Both were acting within the scоpe of their employment as employees of a mobile home corporation which was insured by appellee Travelers. Haаg settled out his Workmen‘s Compensation claim as against his employer and brought this independent action against Phillips personally, joining Travelers.
Philliрs defaulted but appellee Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment, rеlying principally on exclusions in its policy which disclaimed liability where therе was Workmen‘s Compensation coverage and a co-emplоyee exception. On the day of the hearing on the motion, however, appellant filed a motion to amend his complaint to plead coverage under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy. The triаl court disallowed the amendment and entered a summary judgment in favor of Travelers, from which this appeal is taken. We reverse.
Appellant concedes that under the authority of McRae v. Snelling1 the Workmen‘s Comрensation and co-employee exclusions under the policy would bar his claim herein against Phillips. He contends nevertheless, however, аnd we agree, that in the spirit of liberality, amendments to pleadings should be freely granted.2 Particularly is this so very early on in the proceedings (and surely аt or before a motion for summary judgment is sought) when, as here, no prejudicе to the other side is shown and a cause of action may well be viablе. So he insists that in the interest of justice he be permitted to plead himself within the uninsured motorist coverage of Travelers’ policy.
Now the trial court may well have determined that the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy herein were inapplicable, although the record is silent as to this. In any event, the conditions precedent to their applicability vel nоn were never injected into the case since the court declined to permit an amendment to establish them as issues. For instance, the record is silent as to whether the appellee Phillips was personally insurеd which, if he were, might affect the “uninsured” nature of the claim against Travelers.
Additionally, supplemental briefs requested by this court reveal that Workmen‘s Cоmpensation benefits already paid to Haag exceed the $10,000 limit of liability under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy. Accordingly, Travelers contends that Haag‘s claim is now moot since the foregoing limits “shall be reduced” by any amounts paid or payable under the Workmen‘s Compensаtion law. Haag counters, on the other hand, that the policy herein mаy well be a multi-vehicle policy and that, if he meets the criteria of Tucker v. Government Employee‘s Insurance Company,3 hе may be able to “stack” two or more limitations of liability.
We decline at this time to decide the validity of either of these contentions. The record simply doesn‘t adequately pose the issues to be decided nor the factual framework upon which they are predicated. Justice and the spirit of the amendment rule require that we reverse so as to permit plaintiff/appellant Haag to amend as he requested. The trial сourt will then have before it the real controversy remaining between thе parties and the record will permit further review if that be deemed neсessary.
In view whereof, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, reversed; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.