National Marine Underwriters, Inc. v. Loring

568 So. 2d 1007, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8327, 1990 WL 164925
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 30, 1990
DocketNo. 90-306
StatusPublished

This text of 568 So. 2d 1007 (National Marine Underwriters, Inc. v. Loring) 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
National Marine Underwriters, Inc. v. Loring, 568 So. 2d 1007, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8327, 1990 WL 164925 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

National Marine Underwriters, Inc. appeals from an order striking its sixth amended complaint as sham on the basis of defendant Loring’s affirmative defense that National Marine failed to comply with section 626.121(2), Florida Statutes (1985), requiring a “managing general agent permit.” We reverse the order and remand for further proceedings on the basis that the defendant lacked standing to assert this defense.

Colonial Penn, a licensed Florida insurer, issued a marine policy on a Chris Craft boat owned by Drs. Krieger and Altman, as insureds.1 A theft claim was made for loss of the vessel. The claim was settled and the insureds executed a release subrogating all rights to Colonial Penn. National Marine, pursuant to its power of attorney to enforce subrogation claims on behalf of Colonial Penn, brought this suit [1008]*1008against defendant Loring alleging he stole the boat. The claim brought by National Marine for Colonial Penn is as though Drs. Krieger and Altman had sued Loring. In such a subrogation claim, the third party causing injury to an insured cannot rely upon defenses that might have been raised between the insurer and the insured. Firestone Service Tires, Inc. of Gainesville v. Wynn, 131 Pla. 94, 179 So. 175 (1938); see 16 Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law § 61:59 (1983); 6A Appleman’s Insurance Law & Practice § 4102 (1972). Consequently, defendant Loring lacks standing to assert, as he did, that National Marine violated the state insurance code.

Based on the above analysis, the order granting the defendant’s motion to strike the sixth amended complaint as sham is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings which may include the assertion of other viable affirmative defenses which defendant Loring has standing to raise.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Firestone Service Stores, Inc. v. Wynn Ex Rel. Home Insurance
179 So. 175 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
568 So. 2d 1007, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8327, 1990 WL 164925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-marine-underwriters-inc-v-loring-fladistctapp-1990.