03-0661 MONTE DE OCA V. STATE FARM

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2004 » 03-0661 MONTE DE OCA V. STATE FARM

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 03-0661 MONTE DE OCA V. STATE FARM

Case Date: 12/22/2004

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 **

IFRAIN MONTE DE OCA, Appellant, vs. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY,

** ** ** **

CASE NO. 3D03-661 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 01-17650

Appellee. ** ________________________________ RICHARD SNELL, Appellant, vs. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees. ** CASE NO. 3D03-1468 ** ** ** ** ** Opinion filed December 22, 2004. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade Eleanor M. Schockett and Ronald M. Friedman, Judges. County, LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 01-17650

#3D03-661: Diane H. Tutt (Davie) and Sharon C. Degan, for appellant Monte de Oca. #3D03-661: Akerman Senterfitt and Marcy Levine Aldrich and Nancy A. Cooperthwaite and Jason Kellogg, for appellee State Farm.

#3D03-1468: Boies, Schiller & Flexner and H. Stephen Rash and Steven W. Davis and Orion G. Callison, III, for appellant Snell. #3D03-1468: Akerman Senterfitt and Marcy Levine Aldrich and Jason Kellogg and Nancy A. Copperthwaite, for appellees Allstate. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J. and COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH, GREEN, FLETCHER, RAMIREZ, WELLS, and SHEPHERD, JJ. FLETCHER, Judge. In these cases, consolidated for rehearing en banc, Ifrain Monte de Oca and Richard Snell appeal from trial court orders dismissing with prejudice their class action complaints against, respectively, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, and Allstate Indemnity Company and Allstate Insurance Company. Monte de Oca1 [the Insured] had an automobile insurance In February, 2001 the Insured's auto In accordance

policy with State Farm.

was involved in an accident with another vehicle.

with the insurance policy's collision coverage provisions State Farm paid the Insured the full amount of his property damage, minus the $500 deductible set out in the policy. State Farm pursued a subrogation2 claim on Monte de Oca's behalf. The subrogation claim was resolved on the basis that

Our discussion of Monte de Oca's situation applies to Snell except where we otherwise indicate.
1 2

Subrogation is generally defined as

2

both

drivers only

were half

50% of

negligent, its

consequently

each

insurer Farm

recovered

subrogation

demand.

State

reimbursed the Insured half ($250) of his $500 deductible.3 The Insured filed this action against State Farm, seeking the balance ($250) of his deductible. The Insured sought to

bring this suit on behalf of himself and all other State Farm insureds, nationwide, for whom State Farm had provided collision coverage, who were paid by State Farm after their vehicle was damaged in an accident with another automobile, and who did not receive back 100% of their deductible from the subrogation claim

"The substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand or right, . . . so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or securities." Black's Law Dictionary 1595 (4th ed. 1968). In relation to insurance, "Subrogation is the right of the insurer to be put in the position of the insured in order to pursue recovery from third parties legally responsible to the insured for a loss paid by the insurer." John Dwight Ingraham, Priority Between Injured and Insured in Subrogation Recoveries, 3 Conn. Ins. L.J. 105, 106-07 (1996-97) quoting 16 George J. Couch, Couch on Insurance

Download 03-0661 MONTE DE OCA V. STATE FARM.pdf