22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 756c
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2206MILAInsurance — Attorney’s fees — Justiciable issues — Where defendant created confusion as to which subsidiary issued policy at issue by intertwining names of subsidiaries and parent company, and medical provider timely sought to amend complaint to name correct insurer within 21-day safe harbor period, insurer’s motion for sanctions is stricken — Because defendant insurer and correct insurer are separate and distinct corporate entities, provider cannot amend complaint to name correct insurer, but must refile suit
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, LLP, as assignee of Andrew Milam, Plaintiff, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. Case No. 2012-SC-2486. December 16, 2014. Jerri L. Collins, Judge.
ORDER
THIS MATTER having come before this Honorable Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s 57.105 Motion for Sanctions or in the Alternative Motion for Extension of Time, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and this Honorable Court having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Defendant, USAA Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter USAA Casualty) claimed that it did not issue a policy of insurance which provided coverage to Andrew Milam. Instead, the policy was issued by Garrison Property and Casualty Company (hereinafter Garrison).
2. In support of its position, Defendant USAA Casualty, filed the policy of insurance issued by Garrison.
3. Defendant argued that the USAA Casualty and Garrison were separate and distinct corporate entities even though both entities were subsidiaries of USAA.
4. During the course of the hearing, Plaintiff pointed out that the all of the corporate officers, board of directors, mailing addresses, and pre-suit designee for both USAA Casualty and Garrison were identical.
4. Moreover, all of the documentation produced by Defendant contained the USAA company logo, the check issued in response to the pre-suit demand letter was issued by USAA Garrison Property and Casualty Company, and the documentation produced with the policy required insureds to contact USAA if there were any questions regarding the policy.
5. By intertwining the company names, Defendant created confusion as to who the correct entity was that actually issued the policy of insurance at issue in this litigation. Consequently, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s 57.105 Motion for Sanctions or in the Alternative Motion for Extension of Time is granted. Plaintiff timely sought leave to amend the complaint to name Garrison as the defendant during the 21 day safe harbor period.
7. Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint to name Garrison is hereby denied. This Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff is attempting to substitute parties under Rule 1.260 instead of simply amending the complaint pursuant to Rule 1.190. Since they are separate and distinct corporate entities, Plaintiff must refile the lawsuit and serve Garrison.
8. Prior to the Court hearing argument on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff ore tenus requested to dismiss the case without prejudice. This Court accepts the dismissal. This case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
9. Based on the dismissal, Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is rendered moot.
* * *
