The Insurance Company of The State of Pennsylvania v. Franklin Ramirez

195 So. 3d 395, 2016 WL 2908445, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7655

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 18, 2016
• Docket: 4D15-3689
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner,

v.

FRANKLIN RAMIREZ, Respondent.

No. 4D15-3689

[May 18, 2016]

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 14-11158 12.

Jason B. Trauth and Jason B. Bloom of Lydecker│Diaz, Miami, for petitioner.

Michele K. Feinzig and Robin Bresky of Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Boca Raton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition for certiorari from an order denying a motion to join an indispensable party in an automobile accident claim. The party sought to be joined was also injured in the accident. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in determining that the other injured person was not indispensable. See Phillips v. Choate, 456 So. 2d 556, 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The other injured person had not filed suit. 1 Even if he had, he cannot be considered indispensable, where it is not a departure from the essential requirements of law to deny consolidation of two claims arising out of the same accident. See Pages v. Dominguez, 652 So. 2d 864, 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

1 The other injured person did move to intervene at the same time that petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party. The trial court denied intervention, but the second injured person did not appeal. WARNER, STEVENSON and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.