JOANNA RAY, A MINOR, BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, JO ANN RAY, AND JO ANN RAY, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANK E. PFEIFFER AND THE SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF SHELBY, OHIO, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of homeowners liability insurer from negligence action, holding that the real party in interest and third party beneficiary doctrines extend to homeowners policies, not just automobile liability policies.
The real party in interest and third party beneficiary theories apply to homeowners liability insurance policies, allowing injured plaintiffs to sue the insurer directly in negligence actions.
[1] Real party in interest and third party beneficiary doctrines permitting direct suit against liability insurers extend to homeowners liability policies as well as automobi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA minor plaintiff and her mother sued defendant Pfeiffer for negligence injuries and joined his homeowners liability insurer as a defendant, relying o…
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 Direct Action Against Insurer cases and more on FLexlaw
In this negligence action plaintiff-appellants brought suit to recover damages resulting from injuries to the minor’ plaintiff. In apparent reliance on Shingleton v. Bussey,1 they joined the defendant-insurance company alleging that it had theretofore issued a homeowners liability insurance policy to defendant-appellee Pfeiffer. The trial judge ruled that the rationale of Shingleton was limited to suits involving automobile liability insurance. He dismissed the action against the defendant-insurance company and entered final judgment in favor of the company and against plaintiff. This appeal ensued.
In Beta Eta House Corp. v. Gregory2 our sister court in the First District decided the precise question before us. That is to say, they applied the real party in interest and third party beneficiary theories to a case involving a homeowners liability policy, thus extending the holding in Shingle-ton. This case is conceptually indistinguishable from Beta Bta; and we fully concur with our sister court’s decision in that case.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed.
HOBSON, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)