AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE CO., ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
JOSE REID, DAVID GOODWIN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring it to defend a defendant in a personal injury action. The appellate court granted certiorari and quashed the order, holding that due process requires Auto-Owners must be made a party to and served with process in the personal injury action itself, even though the defense obligation had been established in a separate declaratory judgment action.
A trial court may not order an insurance company to defend a party in an action unless the insurance company is made a party to that action and served with process. Although the issue of whether the defense must be provided may have been litigated in a separate declaratory judgment action, due process requires personal jurisdiction over the insurance company in the main action where the defense order is being entered.
[1] A court lacks jurisdiction to order a party to defend an action if that party has not been made a party to the action and served with process.
[2] Due process requires that a party be subject to the jurisdiction of the court before being ordered to undertake a defense in that court's action.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Due process requires that, if Auto-Owners is to be ordered in the personal injury action to undertake the defense of Goodwin, it must be made a party to that action and served with process.”
Establishes the core holding that due process requires personal jurisdiction and service of process in the action where the defense order is entered.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Goodwin was a defendant in a personal injury action. In a separate declaratory judgment action, Goodwin obtained an order requiring Auto-Owners …
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 Jurisdiction Over The Person cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Auto-Owners) seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order in a personal injury action (circuit court case number 89-1255-CA-01) requiring it to defend the interests of David Goodwin, a defendant in that action. We grant certiorari and quash the order. In a separate declaratory judgment action (circuit court case number 89-1494-CA-91) before the trial court, David Goodwin obtained an order requiring Auto-Owners to defend his interests in case number 89-1255. The declaratory judgment is now on appeal and a stay of the final judgment was granted on October 14, 1991, in this court’s case number 91-1427. When Auto-Owners failed to provide a defense, the trial court in the personal injury action entered the order although Auto-Owners had never been made subject to the trial court’s jurisdiction in that action.
Due process requires that, if Auto-Owners is to be ordered in the personal injury action to undertake the defense of Goodwin, it must be made a party to that action and served with process. This must be accomplished although the issue of whether the defense must be provided has been litigated previously. The issue need not be relitigated, but Auto-Owners must be subject to the jurisdiction of the court. A trial judge lacks jurisdiction to determine matters until a jurisdiction over the person is acquired. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Canal Authority of State of Florida, 423 So. 2d 421 (5th DCA 1982), review denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983). While the declaratory judgment action was ancillary or collateral to the main personal injury action, it was separate and distinct from the main action and was never consolidated with it. See Space Coast Credit Union v. The First, F.A., 467 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Service of process in the ancillary declaratory judgment action will not act as a substitute for service in the main personal injury action.
The order in this action requiring Auto-Owners to defend David Goodwin is quashed, and we remand for further proceedings.
Certiorari GRANTED; order QUASHED; REMANDED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and DIAMANTIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Royal Frozen Fish Co., Inc. v. Amer Seafoods, Inc., 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. The Canal Auth. OF the State OF Fla., 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Space Coast Credit Union v. THE First, 467 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)