Beaupre v. Testa

449 So. 2d 311, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12368
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 21, 1984
DocketNos. 83-1163, 83-1485
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 449 So. 2d 311 (Beaupre v. Testa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beaupre v. Testa, 449 So. 2d 311, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12368 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s order dismissing as party defendants, appellees Cincinnati Insurance Company and Queen City Indemnity Company. The trial court’s order of dismissal was based on the non-joinder statute, section 627.7262, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). Appellant also appeals the final judgment entered on a jury verdict finding for the appellant in the amount of $110,000. We reverse both the order of dismissal and the final judgment.

Section 627.7262 became effective October 1,1982. The accident out of which appellant’s cause of action accrued occurred on September 28, 1981, and appellant’s cause of action was filed prior to the effective date of the statute. VanBibber v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance Company, 439 So.2d 880 (Fla.1983), holds section 627.7262 to be constitutional and not applicable to causes of action predicated on events occurring prior to the effective date of the statute. This court in Harris v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., 442 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), applied VanBibber to re[312]*312verse the trial court’s dismissal of the ap-pellee insurance company as a party defendant. We are required by VanBibber and Harris to do likewise.

Appellant also raises as error the failure of the trial court to give one of appellant’s requested instructions. The subject of the requested instruction was adequately covered by the court’s general instructions, and the refusal to give appellant’s requested instruction was not error.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lane v. Lodal, Inc.
474 So. 2d 413 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
449 So. 2d 311, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beaupre-v-testa-fladistctapp-1984.