IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLATE DIVISION
SOUTHERN GROUP INDEMNITY, INC.,
as subrogee of Irina Renee Plonka,
Appellant,
vs.
Appeal No. 01-5466-CI-88A
AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellee.
________________________________________/
Opinion filed ________________________
Appeal from final judgment
Pinellas County Court, Civil Division
The Honorable Karl B. Grube
J. Emory Wood, Esquire
5015 4th Street North, Suite A
St. Petersburg, FL 33703
Attorney for Appellant
Sarah Clark Holloway, Esquire
1133 16th Street North
St. Petersburg, FL 33705
Attorney for Appellee
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on appeal, filed by the Appellant, Southern Group Indemnity, Inc., as subrogee of Irina Renee Plonka, (Southern Group) from the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Order), entered in favor of the Appellee, Auto Owners Insurance Company (Auto Owners). Upon review of the record and the briefs and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Order is affirmed.
It is therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion is
Dismiss is affirmed.
DONE AND
ORDERED in Chambers, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this
___________________________________
NANCY MOATE LEY |
Copies Furnished To:
The Honorable Karl B. Grube
J. Emory Wood, Esquire
Sarah C. Holloway, Esquire
Staff Attorney
[1] The record shows that Southern Group did not receive notice of the indemnity action (styled AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee of FRED B. SIEBER, and FRED B. SIEBER, individually, vs. RENE W. MEYER, d/b/a ACTION IMPORTS, and IRINA RENEE PLONKA, Case No. 98-007215-CO-054), until after the lower court had entered the Summary Final Judgment against Ms. Plonka. Nevertheless, Southern Group did not deny Ms. Plonka coverage and satisfied the judgment entered against her.
[2] The dismissed Complaint made the same argument as was asserted in Ms. Plonka’s Motion for Relief from Summary Final Judgment; that is, as a permissive driver of Mr. Sieber’s vehicle, Ms. Plonka was an additional insured under Mr. Sieber’s policy issued by Auto Owners, such that Auto Owners was not entitled to indemnity from Ms. Plonka.