Frontier Insurance Co. v. Gluck

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frontier Insurance Co. v. Gluck

714 So. 2d 616, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9105, 1998 WL 406642

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 22, 1998

DocketNo. 98-0975

StatusPublished

This text of 714 So. 2d 616 (Frontier Insurance Co. v. Gluck) 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

Frontier Insurance Co. v. Gluck, 714 So. 2d 616, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9105, 1998 WL 406642 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Through this petition for writ of certiorari, Frontier Insurance Company challenges a trial court’s abatement of the declaratory judgment action on coverage. We exercise our certiorari jurisdiction and grant the petition. Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. Central Jersey Invs., Inc., 632 So.2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

The parties do not dispute that in determining if there is a duty to defend, the trial court is restricted to the allegations of the complaint, regardless of what the defendant and others say actually happened. Marr Invs., Inc. v. Greco, 621 So.2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In its present form, the underlying complaint does not seek damages associated with Respondents’ “providing or failing to provide professional services.” Accordingly, the issue of Petitioner’s insur-[617]*617anee coverage is not dependent on the resolution of factual issues common to the underlying litigation. Britamco, 632 So.2d at 141.

Accordingly, we find the trial court’s order departed from the essential requirements of law. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the order abating the cause of action is quashed.

STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Through this petition for writ of certiorari, Frontier Insurance Company challenges a trial court’s abatement of the declaratory judgment action on coverage. We exercise our certiorari jurisdiction and grant the petition. Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. Central Jersey Invs., Inc., 632 So.2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

The parties do not dispute that in determining if there is a duty to defend, the trial court is restricted to the allegations of the complaint, regardless of what the defendant and others say actually happened. Marr Invs., Inc. v. Greco, 621 So.2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In its present form, the underlying complaint does not seek damages associated with Respondents’ “providing or failing to provide professional services.” Accordingly, the issue of Petitioner’s insur-[617]*617anee coverage is not dependent on the resolution of factual issues common to the underlying litigation. Britamco, 632 So.2d at 141.

Accordingly, we find the trial court’s order departed from the essential requirements of law. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the order abating the cause of action is quashed.

STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 So. 2d 616, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9105, 1998 WL 406642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frontier-insurance-co-v-gluck-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack