Motors Insurance Corp. v. Heavy Lift Services, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Motors Insurance Corp. v. Heavy Lift Services, Inc.

569 So. 2d 763, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4072, 1990 WL 73241

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2817

StatusPublished

This text of 569 So. 2d 763 (Motors Insurance Corp. v. Heavy Lift Services, Inc.) 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

Motors Insurance Corp. v. Heavy Lift Services, Inc., 569 So. 2d 763, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4072, 1990 WL 73241 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVY, Judge.

Following the prior remand of this case, after an earlier appeal, the appellant herein, who was the plaintiff below, filed its “Second Amended Complaint” alleging facts which it believed constituted the “active participation ... in arranging or procuring the transportation of the vehicles from the Florida port.” Motors Ins. Corp. v. Heavy Lift Services, Inc., 545 So.2d 389, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Clearly, appellant has now appropriately alleged the “active participation” necessary to proceed further in its litigation against the appellee.

Heavy Lift also makes the same argument we rejected in the first appeal: That the clause “no person shall transport” found in section 319.36(3), Florida Statutes (1982), finds its “harmonic bases” in section 319.36(2) which targets the “master, captain or owner of a vessel.” The two sections are aimed at different classes of violators. We hold now, as a matter of law, that subsection (3) brings within its broad reach any person who violates, or participates in a violation of section 319.36, in addition to those persons enumerated in subsection (2).

Accordingly, finding that the appellant’s “Second Amended Complaint” states a cause of action, we hold that the trial court was in error when it dismissed the Complaint. Therefore, the dismissal must be [764]*764reversed, with this cause being remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

LEVY, Judge.

Following the prior remand of this case, after an earlier appeal, the appellant herein, who was the plaintiff below, filed its “Second Amended Complaint” alleging facts which it believed constituted the “active participation ... in arranging or procuring the transportation of the vehicles from the Florida port.” Motors Ins. Corp. v. Heavy Lift Services, Inc., 545 So.2d 389, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Clearly, appellant has now appropriately alleged the “active participation” necessary to proceed further in its litigation against the appellee.

Heavy Lift also makes the same argument we rejected in the first appeal: That the clause “no person shall transport” found in section 319.36(3), Florida Statutes (1982), finds its “harmonic bases” in section 319.36(2) which targets the “master, captain or owner of a vessel.” The two sections are aimed at different classes of violators. We hold now, as a matter of law, that subsection (3) brings within its broad reach any person who violates, or participates in a violation of section 319.36, in addition to those persons enumerated in subsection (2).

Accordingly, finding that the appellant’s “Second Amended Complaint” states a cause of action, we hold that the trial court was in error when it dismissed the Complaint. Therefore, the dismissal must be [764]*764reversed, with this cause being remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

569 So. 2d 763, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4072, 1990 WL 73241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motors-insurance-corp-v-heavy-lift-services-inc-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack