From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kadar v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 15, 1979
374 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

Opinion

No. MM-214/NT 1-33.

August 15, 1979.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Volusia County, James T. Nelson, J.

James N. Davis, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Monroe E. McDonald of Sanders, McEwan, Mims McDonald, Orlando, for appellee.


Appellant sued her automobile insurer for uninsured motorist coverage benefits of $50,000, the limit of appellant's liability coverage. The insurer answered that appellant's uninsured motorist benefits were $15,000 only, as shown by the policy. Appellant filed a purported reply saying she wasn't given an opportunity to purchase uninsured motorist coverage equal to her liability coverage. After summary judgment was entered for the insurer, there being no doubt that the policy was written for only $15,000 of uninsured motorist benefits, appellant timely sought rehearing, Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.530, and an opportunity to amend her complaint, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190, to seek reformation of the policy for the insurer's asserted failure to offer uninsured motorist coverage equal to appellant's liability limits. That relief was denied.

A motion for rehearing and for leave to amend after entry of an adverse summary judgment, though permissible under the rules, is at best a precarious practice. Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1956); Inman v. The Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Yet considering the limitations on summary judgments and this plaintiff's prior allegations in the purported reply to the insurer's answer, the timely motion for leave to amend should have been granted. If on remand plaintiff amends and ultimately prevails, no award on account of attorney's fees will be made for this appeal.

REVERSED.

SHIVERS, J., concurs.

Associates Judges, sitting by assignment pursuant to Supreme Court administrative order filed July 17, 1979.

MILLS, J., dissents.fn_


I dissent. I would affirm. The trial court did not err in refusing to allow Kadar to amend after summary judgment because this belated attempt would inject new issues into the case. This should not be permitted. Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilities District v. Volusia County, 355 So.2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and United Telephone Co. v. Mayo, 345 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1977).


Summaries of

Kadar v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 15, 1979
374 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)
Case details for

Kadar v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:IRENE MAE KADAR, APPELLANT, v. IOWA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 15, 1979

Citations

374 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

Citing Cases

DiPaolo v. Rollins Leasing Corp.

See, e.g., cases which hold that where summary judgment should be entered, but matters presented indicated…