1 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 267c
Civil procedure — Interpleader by insurance company is not appropriate under facts of instant case involving competing claims to policy proceeds by persons who are themselves plaintiffs in various personal injury actions against insured
BANKERS AND SHIPPERS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. EAST COAST LAND DEVELOPMENT, et al., Defendants. 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, FL, Division CV-C. Case No. 92-17328-CA. February 12, 1993. Peter L. Dearing, Judge. Gerald W. Weedon for Plaintiff. Robert E. O’Quinn, Jr. and Keith W. Jones for East Coast Land Development. Thomas F. Slater for Earleen Joiner. Gary C. Pajcic for Mary Lorraine Heller and Cheryl A. Revell. Dale G. Westling for Charles F. Polochak. Thomas S. Edwards, Jr., for Delores C. Jones, owner of East Coast.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
This cause came on for hearing on the several Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Upon consideration of the pleadings and argument of counsel, the Court finds as follows:
(a) The Amended Complaint states a cause of action for interpleader whereby an insurance company asks for leave to interplead its policy limits into the registry of the Court to be fought over by several competing Defendants who are themselves plaintiffs in various personal injury actions against the insured of the Plaintiff insurance company in the instant case.
(b) It is perfectly logical and sensible that an insurance company should be able to interplead its proceeds and absolve itself of any further responsibility under these circumstances. This sensible approach has been followed by the United States Supreme Court, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (1967), and in several Federal Circuit and District Court cases.
(c) However, the trial courts of Florida are bound to follow Florida Appellate Court decisions in matters of civil procedure, even when they are in conflict with Federal decisions on similar or identical Federal procedural rules. State trial courts must follow the dictates of intermediate Florida appellate courts even when they are not from the district court in which the sitting circuit court is located. Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1992).
(d) In Florida, two other district courts have spoken on the instant issue and have determined that interpleader by an insurance company is not appropriate under the circumstances presented in the instant case. Hernandez v. Travelers Insurance Co., 356 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Manchester Insurance and Indemnity Co. v. Mathews, 312 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
(e) In the instant case, this Court is not permitted to follow logic, reason, or federal precedent because it is bound by the Florida appellate decisions in virtually indistinguishable circumstances.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
The Motions to Dismiss are hereby granted, and this action is hereby dismissed.
* * *
