third-party beneficiary doctrine in Florida

1992New Fairway in this appeal correctly notes the third party beneficiary principle of law that “it is the undertaking on the part of the promisor as a consideration to the promisee, to benefit the third person, that gives rise to a cause of action by the beneficiary against the promisor, resting upon the contract itself.” Marianna Lime Products Co. v. McKay, 109 Fla. 275 , 147 So. 264 (1933).

1992New Fairway in this appeal correctly notes the third party beneficiary principle of law that “it is the undertaking on the part of the promisor as a consideration to the promisee, to benefit the third person, that gives rise to a cause of action by the beneficiary against the promisor, resting upon the contract itself.” Marianna Lime Products Co. v. McKay, 109 Fla. 275 , 147 So. 264 (1933).

2016See Mendez, 140 So. 3d at 674-76 ; Alterra Healthcare, 953 So. 2d at 579 .

2016See Mendez, 140 So.3d at 674-76 ; Alterra Healthcare, 953 So.2d at 579 .

2006Merkle's next argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to grant it leave to amend its complaints to assert a third-party beneficiary claim under Westside EKG Associates v. Foundation Health, 932 So.2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 917 So.2d 193 (Fla.2005).

2006Merkle's next argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to grant it leave to amend its complaints to assert a third-party beneficiary claim under Westside EKG Associates v. Foundation Health, 932 So.2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 917 So.2d 193 (Fla.2005).

2000Co. of No. America, 763 So.2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Bross v. Wallace, 600 So.2d 1198, 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). [2] This count asserted a third party beneficiary claim against Bowen based on legal malpractice in his representation of Reah, which frustrated Naomi's inheritance under the will.

1998Warren v. Monahan Beaches Jewelry Center, Inc., 548 So.2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

1992See also Auto Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Shaw, 134 Fla. 815 , 184 So. 852 (1938); Crabtree v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 438 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Riverview Condominium Corp. v. Campagna Constr.

1986Rihon v. Wilson, 415 So.2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

1982Thompson v. Commercial Union Insurance Company of New York, 250 So.2d 259 (Fla. 1971).

1980In Spindler v. Kuschner, 284 So.2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), the Third District Court of Appeal also held the third party beneficiary doctrine applicable to a situation where the property was destroyed by fire pending the sale.

1973In Maxwell v. Southern American Fire Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So.2d 768 , the rule was applied to a medical payment coverage provision contained in a homeowner's insurance policy.

1971Augustine v. Perkins, 81 Fla. 341 , 87 So. 912 * * * we * * * hold that, when it is manifest from the nature or terms of a contract that the formal parties thereto intended to treat a third party as a person primarily entitled to the benefit of its provisions and therefore a party directly, and not merely consequently, interested in its enforcement, such beneficiary may maintain an action in his own name upon the contract, even though the contract be under seal." This language was followed and further explained in Marianna Lime Products Co. v. McKay, 109 Fla. 275 , 147 So. 264 (1933), and Bruc

1971Augustine v. Perkins, 81 Fla. 341 , 87 So. 912 * * * we * * * hold that, when it is manifest from the nature or terms of a contract that the formal parties thereto intended to treat a third party as a person primarily entitled to the benefit of its provisions and therefore a party directly, and not merely consequently, interested in its enforcement, such beneficiary may maintain an action in his own name upon the contract, even though the contract be under seal." This language was followed and further explained in Marianna Lime Products Co. v. McKay, 109 Fla. 275 , 147 So. 264 (1933), and Bruc

1971Augustine v. Perkins, 81 Fla. 341 , 87 So. 912 * * * we * * * hold that, when it is manifest from the nature or terms of a contract that the formal parties thereto intended to treat a third party as a person primarily entitled to the benefit of its provisions and therefore a party directly, and not merely consequently, interested in its enforcement, such beneficiary may maintain an action in his own name upon the contract, even though the contract be under seal." This language was followed and further explained in Marianna Lime Products Co. v. McKay, 109 Fla. 275 , 147 So. 264 (1933), and Bruc

1971"Viewed in this light, we think there exists sufficient reason to raise by operation of law the intent to benefit injured third parties and thus to render motor vehicle liability insurance amenable to the third party beneficiary doctrine." Moreover, in Beta Eta House Corp. of Tallahassee, Inc., v. Gregory, supra , we also said: "In the event the carrier denies coverage, this issue may be determined by a separate trial before, as well as after, the trial on the merits. * * * * * * "The separate trial is not necessarily limited to the issue of coverage.

1971Augustine v. Perkins, 81 Fla. 341 , 87 So. 912 * * * we * * * hold that, when it is manifest from the nature or terms of a contract that the formal parties thereto intended to treat a third party as a person primarily entitled to the benefit of its provisions and therefore a party directly, and not merely consequently, interested in its enforcement, such beneficiary may maintain an action in his own name upon the contract, even though the contract be under seal." This language was followed and further explained in Marianna Lime Products Co. v. McKay, 109 Fla. 275 , 147 So. 264 (1933), and Bruc

1971Augustine v. Perkins, 81 Fla. 341 , 87 So. 912 * * * we * * * hold that, when it is manifest from the nature or terms of a contract that the formal parties thereto intended to treat a third party as a person primarily entitled to the benefit of its provisions and therefore a party directly, and not merely consequently, interested in its enforcement, such beneficiary may maintain an action in his own name upon the contract, even though the contract be under seal." This language was followed and further explained in Marianna Lime Products Co. v. McKay, 109 Fla. 275 , 147 So. 264 (1933), and Bruc

1969Appellee cites Sickler v. Indian River Abstract & Guaranty Co., 142 Fla. 528 , 195 So. 195 (1940), and Canaveral Capital Corporation v. Bruce, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So.2d 505 , as authority for a contradictory holding.

1969Appellee cites Sickler v. Indian River Abstract & Guaranty Co., 142 Fla. 528 , 195 So. 195 (1940), and Canaveral Capital Corporation v. Bruce, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So.2d 505 , as authority for a contradictory holding.