Colony Insurance Company v. Montecito Renaissance, Inc. et al, No. 8:2009cv01469 - Document 45 (M.D. Fla. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER denying without prejudice 26 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Final Judgment. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 11/4/2010. (LN)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Colony Insurance Company v. Montecito Renaissance, Inc. et al Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:09-cv-1469-T-30MAP MONTECITO RENAISSANCE, INC., et al., Defendants. _____________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.26), Defendants’ Responses in opposition (Dkts. 28 and 31), and Plaintiff’s Replies (Dkt. 35 and 41). Plaintiff Colony Insurance Company filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that based on insurance contracts between the parties, it has no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants Montecito Renaissance, Inc., Montecito Renaissance, LLP, William S. Rogers, Jr., Melinda Pierson, Debbie Clark, Glenn Ebers, and Edward Clark in connection with a state court action brought by the Avalon at Clearwater Condominium Association. Under Florida law, “the duty of an insurance carrier to defend a claim falling within its insurance contract depends solely on the allegations in the complaint filed against the insured.” Tropical Park v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 357 So. 2d 253, 256 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1978). Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is based on the allegations contained in the second amended complaint in the underlying state court action. Since Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff’s motion was filed in this Court, a third amended complaint has been filed in the underlying action, which adds new allegations not addressed by the parties in their pleadings in this federal action. The third amended complaint supercedes the earlier pleadings and may affect the Court’s ruling on summary judgment. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to allow Plaintiff to file a new motion addressing issues raised by the third amended complaint. It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Final Judgment (Dkt. 26) is DENIED without prejudice. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 4, 2010. Copies furnished to: Counsel/Parties of Record S:\Odd\2009\09-cv-1469.msj 26.frm Page 2 of 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
