Case Name: Mitchell WOLFSON, Jr., Louis Wolfson, III, Sylvan Myers, Arthur H. Hertz and Stanley L. Stern, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Mitchell Wolfson, deceased, Appellants, v. The INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA and Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-06-19
Citations: 451 So. 2d 1005
Docket Number: No. 83-1407
Parties: Mitchell WOLFSON, Jr., Louis Wolfson, III, Sylvan Myers, Arthur H. Hertz and Stanley L. Stern, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Mitchell Wolfson, deceased, Appellants, v. The INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA and Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, Appellees.
Judges: Before HUBBART, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 451
Pages: 1005–1008

Head Matter:
Mitchell WOLFSON, Jr., Louis Wolfson, III, Sylvan Myers, Arthur H. Hertz and Stanley L. Stern, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Mitchell Wolfson, deceased, Appellants, v. The INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA and Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, Appellees.
No. 83-1407.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 19, 1984.
Starr W. Horton, Miami, for appellants.
Beckham & McAliley and James S. Robertson, Miami, Raggio, Jaffee, Kayser & Hunting and Laurie R. Rockett and Leo Kayser, III, New York City, for appellees.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial upon a holding that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the defendant insurers herein to call at trial two material witnesses not listed in their pre-trial catalog because: (a) the trial court's pre-trial order required both parties to exchange the names and addresses of all material witnesses, except impeachment witnesses, whom the parties expected to-call at trial, (b) the aforesaid witnesses omitted from the insurers' pre-trial catalog were substantive, not impeachment witnesses, called by the defendant insurers on the central issue tried below, to wit: whether the said insurers were prejudiced by the plaintiff-insured's late notice concerning the illness of the insured horse, (c) based on this record, the plaintiff-insured was surprised and prejudiced when these witnesses were called at trial in violation of the trial court's pre-trial order, Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981); (2) the trial court's error in allowing the above two material witnesses to testify cannot be considered a harmless error inasmuch as their testimony was relevant to what we consider a legitimate issue under Florida law concerning whether the insurers were prejudiced by the late notice herein, Tiedtke ¶. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 222 So.2d 206 (Fla.1969); (3) the plaintiff insured on this record was not entitled to a summary judgment on the above-stated central issue concerning the prejudice issue and the trial court committed no error in denying his motion for summary judgment herein.
We are unaware of any Florida cases which limit the effect of the Tiedtke decision in the manner suggested by the dissent; moreover, we see nothing in the Tiedtke decision itself which supports such a proposed limitation. If, in fact, the defendant insurers have not been prejudiced by the insured's failure to comply with the notice of injury or damage provisions of an insurance policy, Tiedtke plainly holds that the said insurers should not be relieved of all liability under the policy. The fact that the notice in question is required to be made before, rather than after, the loss in question is suffered should make no difference, as in either event the defendant insurers have not been prejudiced in any way. We are further persuaded that even if this proposed limitation be valid, it should be for the Florida Supreme Court, rather than this court, to adopt such a limitation. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973).
As an aside, we are not impressed with the argument that the result we reach in this case will have any adverse impact on insurance rates in Florida. No such showing has been made in the record or briefs in this case, and indeed, the issue has not even been argued by any of the parties herein. We also note the defendant insurers have filed no cross-appeal contending that they were entitled to summary judgment in this case, and make no argument with respect to the exclusion of witnesses issue that the error herein was harmless because they were entitled to a summary judgment in their favor.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.