27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 954a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2711GAINInsurance — Homeowners — Additional named insured under homeowners policy is not indispensable party to action concerning payment of benefits under policy
ANDREW GAINEY, Plaintiff, v. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY dba SECURITY FIRST FLORIDA, Defendant. Circuit Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2019-CA-004801-O. December 16, 2019. Chad K. Alvaro, Judge. Counsel: David Albert Spain, Morgan & Morgan, Orlando, for Plaintiff. Andrew Mitchell, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFEDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISSAND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Having come before the Court on the 4th day of December at 8:30 p.m. on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Indispensable Party/Motion to Add Indispensible[sic] Party and Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. This matter involves a first party dispute over payment of homeowner insurance policy benefits.
2. Defendant, Security First Insurance Company, in response to Plaintiff’s complaint, requested dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint, or alternatively to add the additional named insured under the policy, Karen Rattigan, as an indispensable party to this action.
3. This Court finds that this case can be adjudicated in its merits without Karen Rattigan as a party to this action, and as such, is not an indispensable party. See Phillips v. Choate, 456 So. 2d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
4. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Indispensable Party/Motion to Add Indispensible[sic] Party is DENIED.
5. Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant shall have (20) days to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
