Title: Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Conquest

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

658 So. 2d 928 (1995)
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
Bonita CONQUEST, Respondent.
No. 83827.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 6, 1995.
Raymond T. Elligett, Jr. and Bonnie A. Glober of Schropp, Buell & Elligett, P.A., Tampa, for petitioner.
K. Jack Breiden of Breiden & Associates, Naples, for respondent.
Paul B. Butler, Jr., John W. Weihmuller and Lisa A. Oonk of Butler, Burnette & Pappas, Tampa, amici curiae for State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., United Services Auto. Ass'n, Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Royal Ins. Co. of America, American Ins. Ass'n, Alliance of American Insurers and The Defense Research Institute.
Paul B. Butler, Jr. and John W. Weihmuller of Butler, Burnette & Pappas, Tampa, for The Royal Ins. Co. of America and United Services Auto. Ass'n, Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., the Hartford Fire Ins. Co., the American Ins. Ass'n, the Alliance of American Insurers, and the Defense Research Institute, joining State Farm's amicus curiae Brief.
Paul E.B. Glad and John Leland Williams of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, San Francisco, CA; and William T. Barker of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, IL, amici curiae for Nat. Ass'n of Independent Insurers and Allstate Ins. Co.
Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin, P.A., Miami, amicus curiae for the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review the decision in Conquest v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 637 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), which certified conflict with the decision in Cardenas v. Miami-Dade Yellow Cab Co., 538 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 549 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1989). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We approve the decision below.
The facts, as determined by the district court, are as follows:
Conquest, 637 So. 2d  at 41-42 (footnote omitted). The district court affirmed the dismissals of counts II and III. Auto-Owners seeks review of the district court's reversal of the dismissal of count I, which pertains to sections 624.04, 624.155(1)(a)1., and 626.9541(1)(i)3. a., c., d., Florida Statutes (1993).
Section 624.04 defines "person" as used in the Florida Insurance Code and states that:
Section 624.155(1)(a)1. tells who may bring a civil action and sets forth Code violations that subject the insurer to suit. The section states, in part, that:
1. Section 626.9541(1)(i), (o), or (x)... .
Bonita Conquest alleged a cause of action under section 624.155(1)(a)1. based on her assertion that Auto-Owners violated section 626.9541(1)(i)3. a., c., and d, of the 1993 Code, which lists the following unfair practices by the insurer:
Although the trial court failed to find a cause of action, the district court, compelled by the language of the sections, reached a contrary conclusion and found nothing in the sections that would restrict claims to insureds only. Conquest, 637 So. 2d  at 43. In so finding, the district court certified conflict with Cardenas v. Miami-Dade Yellow Cab Co., 538 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), which found that section 624.155(1)(a)1. prohibits third-party actions. For the reasons set out below, we adopt the decision under review and disapprove Cardenas.
Section 624.155 is the mechanism by which a person may bring a civil suit against an insurer who violates the Insurance Code and provides that "[a]ny person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged." We find the section's use of the words "any person" dispositive. The words are precise and their meaning unequivocal. By choosing this wording the legislature has evidenced its desire that all persons be allowed to bring civil suit when they have been damaged by enumerated acts of the insurer. This Court has a long history of giving deference to a statute's clear and unambiguous wording. See, e.g., Zuckerman v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 646 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1994); S.R.G. Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 365 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1978). Since the legislature has not prohibited third-party actions under the Code we are bound by that legislative determination. See also State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1995) (section 624.155 provides remedies for first- and third-party actions). We are not unmindful of Cardenas' premonition that a *930 plain reading of the words "any person" as including injured third-parties
538 So. 2d  at 496. We are nonetheless compelled by the section's clear wording and we are not free to speculate on the repercussions.
The decision of the court below is approved and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We disapprove Cardenas v. Miami-Dade Yellow Cab Co., 538 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), to the extent it conflicts with our decision herein.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.