Sun Bank of Miami v. Insurance Co. of North America

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sun Bank of Miami v. Insurance Co. of North America

452 So. 2d 579, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12939

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 1984

DocketNo. 83-2490

StatusPublished

This text of 452 So. 2d 579 (Sun Bank of Miami v. Insurance Co. of North America) 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

Sun Bank of Miami v. Insurance Co. of North America, 452 So. 2d 579, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12939 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Since the insured of the appellee carrier INA was sued on a claim for which the policy provided liability coverage,¹ we conclude that the plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of that portion of the policy and that INA was properly joined as a party defendant under the thus-controlling authority of Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So.2d 713 (Fla.1969) and Beta Eta House Corp., Inc. v. Gregory, 237 So.2d 163 (Fla.1970).² On the other hand, while American Empire Ins. Co. of South Dakota v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 408 F.2d 72 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 818, 90 S.Ct. 55, 24 L.Ed.2d 69 (1969) and Everhart v. Drake Management, Inc., 627 F.2d 686 (5th Cir.1980), upon which INA relies for a contrary result, involve policies, denominated broker’s blanket bonds, which are generally similar to the one before us, both were exclusively in the nature of fidelity bonds which protected only the insured against its own direct losses. Neither contained a provision such as the one we deem decisive here, inuring to the benefit of a third-party claimant like the present plaintiff. For these reasons, the order below dismissing INA as a party defendant is

Reversed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Since the insured of the appellee carrier INA was sued on a claim for which the policy provided liability coverage,¹ we conclude that the plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of that portion of the policy and that INA was properly joined as a party defendant under the thus-controlling authority of Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So.2d 713 (Fla.1969) and Beta Eta House Corp., Inc. v. Gregory, 237 So.2d 163 (Fla.1970).² On the other hand, while American Empire Ins. Co. of South Dakota v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 408 F.2d 72 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 818, 90 S.Ct. 55, 24 L.Ed.2d 69 (1969) and Everhart v. Drake Management, Inc., 627 F.2d 686 (5th Cir.1980), upon which INA relies for a contrary result, involve policies, denominated broker’s blanket bonds, which are generally similar to the one before us, both were exclusively in the nature of fidelity bonds which protected only the insured against its own direct losses. Neither contained a provision such as the one we deem decisive here, inuring to the benefit of a third-party claimant like the present plaintiff. For these reasons, the order below dismissing INA as a party defendant is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 So. 2d 579, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sun-bank-of-miami-v-insurance-co-of-north-america-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack