20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 829b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2008HUBBInsurance — Personal injury protection — Complaint — Amendment — Substitution of insurer — Motion to amend complaint to substitute insurer that is entirely separate and distinct legal entity from, but closely affiliated to, insurer against whom action had been pending is denied
ONE CALL PROPERTY SERVICES INC. (A/A/O SALLY HUBBARD), Plaintiff, vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 19th Judicial Circuit in and for Indian River County, Civil Division. Case No. 31 2012 CC 001566. May 16, 2013. Honorable David Morgan, Judge. Phillip Rogers, Winter Park, for Plaintiff. Chris Cavaliere, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE came before this Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. A hearing was conducted on May 10, 2013. Having considered the motion, court file, applicable law, and the argument of counsel, the Court finds as follows:
This is an action for Personal Injury Protection benefits in which Plaintiff filed a complaint against USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant breached an auto insurance contract providing such benefits.
In its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, Defendant stated that it did not issue the insurance policy in dispute and that United Services Automobile Association, a closely affiliated insurance company, was in fact the company that issued the policy. On the same day, Defendant served on Plaintiff its “Notice of Intent to Seek Sanctions Under F.S. § 57.105,” again stating that it did not issue the insurance policy in dispute and that it would seek attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statute Section 57.105 if Plaintiff did not dismiss its case within twenty-one days. The twenty one days have since expired. Plaintiff now seeks leave from this Court to amend its complaint to name United Services Automobile Association as Defendant in the place of USAA Casualty Insurance Company.
In its Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, Plaintiff refers to its decision to name USAA Casualty Insurance Company as a mere “scrivener’s error” and argues that its proposed amended complaint will not prejudice Defendant in light of its close affiliation with United Services Automobile Association. This Court disagrees.
This is not a case involving the correction of a mere scrivener’s error. Instead, Plaintiff seeks in its proposed amended complaint to substitute an entirely separate and distinct legal entity in the place of another. See Graney v. Caduceus Properties, LLC, 91 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D1467a] (distinguishing between amendments that seek to merely correct a misnomer and those seeking to insert a new party into a lawsuit); Raveling Chiropractic Center (a/a/o Sharon Reeves) v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 499a (6th Jud. Cir. Ct. Feb. 8, 2013) (ruling that the plaintiff could not amend its complaint to substitute United Services Automobile Association in the place of USAA Casualty Insurance Company). Although USAA Casualty Insurance Company and United Services Automobile Association might share several things in common, they are irrefutably separate and distinct legal entities as demonstrated by their different corporate names and federal tax identification numbers.
Despite Florida’s liberal amendment standard, such a substitution is impermissible. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260 only provides for such a substitution of parties in cases of death, incompetency, or transfers of interest, and this case involves none of these. Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.260; see e.g. Reeves, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 499a.
Allowing such a substitution would also prejudice the Defendant. Not only has Defendant expended resources in defending the case against it up to this point, but it would also be prevented from exercising its right under Florida Statute Section 57.105 to move for attorney’s fees and costs should it ultimately prevail in this matter. See e.g. Reeves, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 499a.
However liberal Florida’s amendment standard might be, it does not allow for a substitution such as this.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is hereby DENIED.
* * *
