HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
KATHLEEN GEPHART, SECURE TITLE SERVICE, INC., NORTH PALM BEACH TITLE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., AND FLORIDA COAST TITLE, INC., APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 1994-07-06
No. 93-1677
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
639 So. 2d 179 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1994) Caution
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

Home Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment on its duty to indemnify insureds before the underlying third-party lawsuit was concluded. The court affirmed dismissal on grounds of prematurity but remanded to enter a proper dismissal order without prejudice, allowing the insurer to refile after the underlying litigation concludes.


Holding

The trial court properly dismissed the action as premature because factual questions concerning fund transference would likely affect both the underlying litigation and the duty to indemnify determination, and because the third-party plaintiff was not joined in the declaratory action. However, the form of the final judgment was erroneous and must be vacated and replaced with a proper dismissal order without prejudice to refile.


Headnotes

[1] A declaratory action seeking to determine an insurer's duty to indemnify is generally premature until the conclusion of the underlying litigation against the insured.

[2] An insurer may seek a declaration of its duty to indemnify prior to the conclusion of underlying litigation when the issue of coverage is not dependent on the resolution…

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“Although some cases present facts that allow the issue of the duty to indemnify to be decided in a declaratory action prior to the conclusion of the underlying suit, the facts of the present case do not present such a situation.”

Establishes the court's analytical framework distinguishing when early declaratory judgments on coverage are appropriate versus when they must be deferred.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Home Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action against its insureds seeking determination of its duty to indemnify them before the underly…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant/insurer primarily contends that the trial court erred in dismissing its above action because it was entitled, at this time, to a declaration of any duty to indemnify.1 We affirm dismissal but remand with direction to vacate the final judgment and enter an order of dismissal, without prejudice to refile the action upon the issue of the duty to indemnify at the conclusion of the underlying action against appellees/insureds by a third party.

Dismissal was proper because of the action’s prematurity. Although some cases present facts that allow the issue of the duty to indemnify to be decided in a declaratory action prior to the conclusion of the underlying suit, the facts of the present case do not present such a situation. See, e.g., Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. Central Jersey Invs., Inc., 632 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (where issue of coverage is not dependent on resolution of fact issues common to underlying litigation, it may be determined in declaratory action prior to conclusion of underlying suit); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Emery, 579 So. 2d 798, 800-02 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (issue of coverage under business pursuits exclusion appropriate for declaratory action prior to filing of underlying action where resolution of this issue leaves material issues in underlying action unaffected); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Conde, 595 So. 2d 1005, 1008 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (under unusual circumstances where underlying complaint alleges two alternative, mutually exclusive theories of liability, court may look beyond allegations of complaint and determine fact that will answer the duty to defend issue and also thereby answer the duty to indemnify issue).

Unlike in Británico and Emery, the present case involves factual questions concerning the transference of funds that will likely be of concern in the underlying litigation. Unlike in Conde, the theories of liability in the present case are not mutually exclusive. Since the present case does not present the type of situation found in these cases, the issue of appellant’s duty to indemnify appellees must be deferred until liability is determined in the underlying suit.

Another concern when a declaratory action seeks to determine the duty to indemnify prior to the resolution of the underlying litigation is the possibility of inconsistent adjudications which may i'esult where the plaintiff in the underlying case has not been joined in the declaratory action. Thus, it is probably not coincidental that in Británico, Emery, and Conde, in which the courts approved of deciding the coverage issue in the declaratory action prior to the conclusion of the underlying suit, the plaintiff from the underlying suit was joined as a party in the declaratory action. In contrast, in Irvine v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 630 So. 2d 579, 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Markham, 580 So. 2d 251, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), where the plaintiff was not joined in the declaratory suit, the courts applied the general rule that the coverage issue must be deferred until after the under lying litigation is concluded. In the present case, the plaintiff in the underlying litigation was not joined as a party in the declaratory action.

The parties agreed that, if it was determined on appeal that the trial court was correct in dismissing appellant’s complaint, the trial court erred in the form of its final judgment. In State Farm, Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hinestrosa, 614 So. 2d 633, 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), this court explained that the phrase “plaintiff take nothing and defendant go hence without day” is appropriate in cases seeking only a monetary judgment, rather than a declaratory judgment.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur. . Counsel for both parties, at oral argument, independently represented that there is no issue here as to appellant’s duty to defend.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 894 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2004)
    …ct issues common to the underlying litigation, it is entitled to -litigate the coverage issue in a separate declaratory judgment . action while simultaneously defending the insured under-' a reservation of rights); see also Home Ins. Co. v. Gephart, 639 So. 2d 179, 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“Although some cases present facts that allow the issue of the duty to indemnify to be decided in a declaratory action prior to the conclusion of the underlying suit, the facts of the present case do not present such a situ…
    1 / 2
  • State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Higgins, 788 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
    …and Markham stand for the rule that a declaratory action concerning coverage must always follow a determination on the merits in the underlying tort action, [*1003] the legal support for such an absolute rule is thin. Home Insurance Co. v. Gephart, 639 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), is more on point. There, we affirmed the dismissal of an insurer’s declaratory action seeking a ruling on its duty to indemnify its insured. See id. at 180. We found the action to be premature since the declaratory case involved…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw