23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1077a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2310LANDInsurance — Automobile — Complaint — Amendment — Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to correct name of defendant insurer is granted — There is no prejudice to insurer where both insurer named in original complaint and proper insurer have same address, thereby providing proper insurer with notice of plaintiff’s claim, and plaintiff acted swiftly to correct mistake
CLEAR VISION WINDSHIELD, (a/a/o Julie Landaberde), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE 15-7036 (52). March 8, 2016. Giuseppina Miranda, Judge. Counsel: Emilio Roland Stillo and Andrew Davis-Henrichs, for Plaintiff. Brooke Beebe and Tierney Conklin, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’SMOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT THROUGHINTERLINEATION AND DENYING DEFENDANT’SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint through Interlineation and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court having reviewed the Motions and supporting affidavit; the entire Court file; the relevant legal authorities; and having heard argument; and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, finds the following operative issues relevant to this Court determination:
A. that PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY AND PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY are “sufficiently related”; and
B. Plaintiff moved to amend its Complaint in a timely manner as to cause no prejudice to the Defendant.
In the instant action, Defendant does not dispute that both above-referenced companies show the exact same home address, administrative address and telephone numbers, mailing address and location of records and corresponding telephone numbers, thereby placing the Defendant on notice of the claims against it.
In the instant action, the Plaintiff acted swiftly to correct the mistake and name the proper Defendant, to wit:
(1) Plaintiff filed their Complaint on April 2, 2015;
(2) On May 27, 2015 Defendant filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses which alleged that Progressive American had not issued a policy to Julie Landaberde;
(3) On June 4, 2015 Defendant filed their Motion for Summary Judgment;
(4) On June 5, 2015 the Plaintiff filed their Motion to Amend the Complaint;
(5) On June 19, 2015 the parties entered into a stipulation to invoke the Rules of Civil Procedure and waive attendance at the pretrial conference scheduled for June 22, 2015.
Given this timeline and the fact that the address for both business entities is exactly the same, the Court finds no prejudice to the Defendant.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) provides that leave to amend shall be given freely when justice so requires. Also, courts “should be especially liberal when leave to amend is sought at or before a hearing on a motion for summary judgment”. Hutson v. Plantation Open MRI., LLC, 66 So.3d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1682a]. See also, Arch Specialty Insurance Co. v. Kubicki Draper, 137 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D640a].
Additionally, multiple courts have held that it is proper to allow a plaintiff to amend their complaint to correct the named defendant from one entity to another. See, Moore Chiropractic Center, Inc., v. United Services Automobile Association, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 151a (November 30, 2012); Roosevelt Rehab and Chiropractic Clinic v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1000b (December 19, 2012); Emergency Physicians of Central Florida, LLP v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 756c (December 16, 2014); American Injury Centers, Inc. v. USAA General Indemnity Company, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 1085a (March 5, 2015).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint through Interlineation is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
