MOTORS INSURANCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HEAVY LIFT SERVICES, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the Second Amended Complaint properly alleged "active participation" and stated a cause of action under the statute.
The appellant, plaintiff below, filed a Second Amended Complaint after a prior remand, alleging facts constituting "active participation" in arranging…
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 Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVY, Judge.
Following the prior remand of this case, after an earlier appeal, the appellant herein, who was the plaintiff below, filed its “Second Amended Complaint” alleging facts which it believed constituted the “active participation ... in arranging or procuring the transportation of the vehicles from the Florida port.” Motors Ins. Corp. v. Heavy Lift Services, Inc., 545 So. 2d 389, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Clearly, appellant has now appropriately alleged the “active participation” necessary to proceed further in its litigation against the appellee.
Heavy Lift also makes the same argument we rejected in the first appeal: That the clause “no person shall transport” found in section 319.36(3), Florida Statutes (1982), finds its “harmonic bases” in section 319.36(2) which targets the “master, captain or owner of a vessel.” The two sections are aimed at different classes of violators. We hold now, as a matter of law, that subsection (3) brings within its broad reach any person who violates, or participates in a violation of section 319.36, in addition to those persons enumerated in subsection (2).
Accordingly, finding that the appellant’s “Second Amended Complaint” states a cause of action, we hold that the trial court was in error when it dismissed the Complaint. Therefore, the dismissal must be reversed, with this cause being remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Motors Ins. Corp. v. Heavy Lift Servs., Inc., 545 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)