LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MAUDE V. ROBERTS, APPELLEE
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 insurance company's defense regarding improper service was not properly raised, and its argument that a prior case did not apply to homeowners insurance was rejected.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeals orders concerning its addition as a party defendant in a personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff attempted to …
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 Common Law Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company brings this interlocutory appeal from orders, in a common law action.
It argues that it was “improperly served” by process when the plaintiff attempted to add it as a party defendant to her law suit for personal injuries against another individual defendant.
We find that the insurance company never properly raised this defense under the requirements of Rule 1.140(b), “RCP”, 30 F.S.A., and Nicholas v. Harry P. Leu Machinery Corp., Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 232.
Next, the insurance company contends that Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla.1969, *236223 So.2d 713, applies only to motor vehicle liability coverage and that it does not extend to “homeowners” insurance as involved herein.
This contention has been squarely rejected recently in Beta Eta House Corporation, Inc. of Tallahassee, Florida v. Gregory, Fla.App.1969, 230 So.2d 495, 1st D.C.A., filed January 20, 1970. See also Barrios v. Dade County, 38 U.S.L.W. 2393 (U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 1970).
The orders of the trial judge herein appealed are
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Queen v. Travelers Ins. Co., 258 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…third party beneficiary to an insurance policy contract. Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla.1969, 223 So. 2d 713; Beta Eta House Corp., Inc. of Tallahassee v. Gregory, Fla.1970, 237 So. 2d 163; [*37] Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Roberts, Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 235. We hold therefore that the trial court erred in failing to assess a fee pursuant to the provisions of F.S. § 627.0127, F.S.A., upon the motion of the appellant Huerta who was the judgment holder and garnish- or. For the reasons stated we have fou…
-
Everhart v. Drake Mgmt., Inc., 627 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1980)…1970) (medical malpractice actions); Maxwell v. Southern American Fire Insurance Co., 235 So. 2d 768 (Fla. App. 1970) (contract provisions of medical payment coverage portion of homeowner’s insurance policy); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Roberts, 231 So. 2d 235 (Fla. App. 1970) (homeowner’s policy); DaCosta v. General Guaranty Ins. Co., 226 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1969) (marine indemnity insurance policy). . 408 F. 2d 72 (5th Cir. 1969). . I. e., Fidelity and Deposit Co. v. Usaform Hail Pool, Inc., 463 F. 2d 4…
Authorities Cited
- Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1969)
- Gulf Stream Motors, Inc. v. Christina Cook & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1969)
- Beta ETA House Corp. v. Gregory, 230 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Bankruptcy v. Harry P. LEU Mach. Corp., 200 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)