Allstate Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 483 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 483 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Superior Fence & Rail of North Florida v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 525 Denial of intervention for injecting new issues1 citing caselate notice of claim and because the insured’s actions were intentional rather than negligent. A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it denies…opening of page *525 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
James A. JOHNSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gloria Vaughn
No. 85-396.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb 20, 1986.
Published opinion
483 So. 2d 524
1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6533
Richard S. Womble of Anderson & Hurt, P.A., Orlando, for appellant., Phyllis P. Riewe, Merritt Island, for ap-pellee Johnson., James L. Woodman of Smalbein, Eu-bank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, P.A., Rockledge, for appellee Anderson.
Cowart, Orfinger, Schwartz.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
COWART, Judge.

An insurer, Allstate, appeals an order denying its motion to intervene in a wrongful death action in which the estate of the decedent alleges that Allstate’s insured negligently shot and killed the decedent.

The insurer’s petition for intervention in effect seeks to have an adjudication that (1) the insured was late in filing a notice of claim, (2) the insurer was substantially prejudiced by the late notice of claim, (3) the insured’s action in killing plaintiffs decedent was intentional and willful rather than negligent, and (4) [by implication] that the insurer is not liable to defend or pay under its policy because of the prejudicial[*525] late notice of claim and because the insured’s actions were intentional rather than negligent.

A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it denies intervention because the would-be intervenor seeks to inject new issues into the pending action.[1]

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, J., and SCHWARTZ, A.R., Associate Judge, concur.
1

See Riveria Club v. Belle Mead Development Corp., 141 Fla. 538, 194 So. 783 (1939); Oster v. Cay Construction Co., 204 So.2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967).