You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America

Citations: 689 So. 2d 1040; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 4; 1996 Fla. LEXIS 2208Docket: Nos. 85683, 85715

Court: Supreme Court of Florida; December 25, 1996; Florida; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involved a dispute over liability and statutory immunity related to a medical malpractice claim against Miami Children’s Hospital (MCH). The hospital was insured by two entities, the Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (IINA), with specific coverage limits. Following a settlement, IINA pursued litigation against JUA and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, alleging bad faith. The defendants claimed immunity under Florida Statutes Section 627.351(4)(c), which was initially rejected by the trial court, and the jury ruled in favor of IINA. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld this decision, requiring the immunity to be pled as an affirmative defense. However, the Florida Supreme Court reversed this decision, emphasizing the statutory provision that no cause of action arises against the petitioners when performing their duties, and found that the defense was preserved since it was raised at trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the appellate decision, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its ruling that the motion to dismiss should have been granted based on statutory immunity.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmative Defense Requirement

Application: The appellate court initially upheld the necessity of pleading statutory immunity as an affirmative defense, a position ultimately overruled by the Supreme Court.

Reasoning: The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, stating that statutory immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pled, or it will be waived.

Preservation of Defense

Application: The Supreme Court found that the immunity defense was preserved for consideration because it was cited during the trial, thus obligating the lower court to grant the motion to dismiss.

Reasoning: The court noted that the immunity claim was properly preserved for consideration since it was cited during the trial.

Statutory Immunity under Florida Statutes Section 627.351(4)(c)

Application: The Florida Supreme Court determined that the statutory immunity provision precludes any cause of action against the petitioners, as the immunity claim was properly raised during the trial.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court... quashed the appellate decision, asserting that the statutory immunity provision precludes any cause of action against the petitioners.