Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co. v. Mathews

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co. v. Mathews

312 So. 2d 777, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14918

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 1975

DocketNo. 75-80

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 312 So. 2d 777 (Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co. v. Mathews) 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

Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co. v. Mathews, 312 So. 2d 777, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14918 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Manchester Insurance and Indemnity Company, was the insurer of ap-pellee, Hal Allen Mathews under an automobile liability policy. Appellant filed an interpleader action against its insured, Mathews, along with several other parties, and their respective insurance companies, who claimed personal injuries in an automobile accident which was the result of the negligent operation of a vehicle driven by Mathews. According to the interpleader complaint the policy had maximum liability coverage of $10,000 for each person, with an aggregate coverage of $20,000.

This is an interlocutory appeal from the order of the trial court dismissing appellant’s cause of action, finding, inter alia, that no such cause of action existed in Florida. There is, of course, abundant case authority allowing and encouraging the filing of strict interpleader actions. The reason for which is clear — to avoid multiplicity of suits. The instant action is in the nature of a bill of interpleader suit, but is not one of strict interpleader filing. The appellant sought, as relief, an order enjoining the injured parties from commencing or prosecuting any action or suit against appellant arising out of the automobile accident.

After consideration of the record and briefs, in light of the applicable case law, we find no reason to disturb the ruling of the trial court. Accordingly, we

Affirm.

McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Manchester Insurance and Indemnity Company, was the insurer of ap-pellee, Hal Allen Mathews under an automobile liability policy. Appellant filed an interpleader action against its insured, Mathews, along with several other parties, and their respective insurance companies, who claimed personal injuries in an automobile accident which was the result of the negligent operation of a vehicle driven by Mathews. According to the interpleader complaint the policy had maximum liability coverage of $10,000 for each person, with an aggregate coverage of $20,000.

This is an interlocutory appeal from the order of the trial court dismissing appellant’s cause of action, finding, inter alia, that no such cause of action existed in Florida. There is, of course, abundant case authority allowing and encouraging the filing of strict interpleader actions. The reason for which is clear — to avoid multiplicity of suits. The instant action is in the nature of a bill of interpleader suit, but is not one of strict interpleader filing. The appellant sought, as relief, an order enjoining the injured parties from commencing or prosecuting any action or suit against appellant arising out of the automobile accident.

After consideration of the record and briefs, in light of the applicable case law, we find no reason to disturb the ruling of the trial court. Accordingly, we

Affirm.

McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 So. 2d 777, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manchester-insurance-indemnity-co-v-mathews-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack