source: Caselaw Access Project

author: LEWIS, J. CANADY, C.J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    Rethell Byrd CHANDLER, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Respondents. Monica Steele, Petitioner, v. Geico Indemnity Company, et al., Respondents.
    Nos. SC10-1068, SC10-1070.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Nov. 23, 2011.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 2012.

      David H. Burns of Cox, Burns and Gid-dings, P.A., Henry J. Graham of The Graham Law Firm, P.A., and Henry C. Hunter of Hunter and Associates, James E. Messer, Jr. of Fonvielle, Lewis, Foote and Messer, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioners.
    Angela C. Flowers of Kubicki Draper, Ocala, FL, for Respondent.
   LEWIS, J.

Petitioners seek review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Geico Indemnity Co. v. Shazier, 34 So.3d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), on the basis that it conflicts with the decisions of this Court in Susco Car Rental System, of Florida v. Leonard, 112 So.2d 832 (Fla.1959), and Roth v. Old Republic Insurance Co., 269 So.2d 3 (Fla.1972). In Shazier, the district court resolved a question regarding an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify its insured in favor of the insurer. In doing so, the First District relied on a very constricted definition of “consent” and employed an unauthorized driver provision in contradiction of our clear precedent to the contrary under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine to defeat coverage. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

BACKGROUND

Kutasha Shazier was a named insured and owner of a Ford Expedition listed in her automobile insurance policy issued by the Geico Indemnity Company (Geico). In August 2006, because Shazier’s vehicle became disabled due to transmission problems, she rented a Hyundai Sonata from Avis Rent-A-Car (Avis), designating her Geico insurance as the primary insurer. The rental agreement contained the following provision regarding other drivers:

NO ADDITIONAL OPERATORS ARE AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED WITHOUT AVIS’ PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT OR APPLICABLE STATE LAW.

Another paragraph of the agreement also addressed “unauthorized drivers”:

Prohibited Use of the Car. Certain uses of the car and other things you or a driver may do, or fail to do, will violate this agreement. A VIOLATION OF THIS PARAGRAPH, WHICH INCLUDES USE OF THE CAR BY AN UNAUTHORIZED DRIVER, WILL AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE YOUR RENTAL [AND] VOID ALL LIABILITY PROTECTION AND ANY OPTIONAL SERVICES THAT YOU HAVE ACCEPTED!.]

One evening soon thereafter, Shazier permitted the rental vehicle to be used by Frederick Royal, who in turn allowed the rental vehicle to be operated by Tercina Jordan. Jordan negligently operated the vehicle, and the car crashed into a tree, resulting in serious injury to minor passengers in the vehicle and the death of another. The injured passengers and the decedent’s representative subsequently filed personal injury actions against Shazier, Jordan, and Avis, and Avis filed a cross-claim for indemnity against Shazier. Geico, Shazier’s insurer, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that Geico had no duty under the policy to defend and indemnify Shazier or Jordan. One of the injured passengers and Geico filed competing motions for summary judgment. The passenger contended that coverage existed because the rental car constituted a “temporary substitute auto” under the Geico policy. Geico countered that because Avis had not given Jordan express permission to drive the rental car, the rental vehicle was not a “temporary substitute auto” as to the named insured, Shazier, under the terms of the Geico policy and thus Geico had no duty to defend or indemnify either Shazier or Jordan.

Shazier is the named insured in the Gei-co policy, which provides that Geico “will pay damages which an insured becomes legally obligated to pay because of bodily injury, sustained by a person, and damage to or destruction of property[,] arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the owned auto.” Geico also “will defend any suit for damages payable under the terms of [the] policy.” An “owned auto” includes “a vehicle described in [the] policy for which a premium charge is shown” and also “a temporary substitute auto.” The latter term is defined as follows:

“Temporary substitute auto ” means a private passenger, farm or utility auto or trailer, not owned by [the policy holder], temporarily used with the permission of the owner. This vehicle must be used as a substitute for the owned auto or trailer when withdrawn from normal use because of its breakdown, repair, servicing, loss or destruction.

With regard to an “owned auto,” the insurance contract covers the policy holder and “any other person using the auto with [the policy holder’s] permission.” As to a “non-owned auto,” the insurance contract covers the policy holder and his or her relatives “when driving the non-owned auto” with permission of the owner. The term “non-owned auto” includes “a private passenger, farm or utility auto or trailer not owned by or furnished for the regular use of either [the policy holder] or a relative ” but expressly excludes a “temporary substitute auto.”

The trial court entered a summary final judgment in favor of the passenger based on the determination that (1) the rented vehicle satisfied the definition of “temporary substitute auto” and thus was an “owned auto” under the Geico policy, (2) Geico had a duty to defend and indemnify Shazier for her vicarious liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, and (3) Shazier’s decision to permit others to drive the car was covered because it was within the “use” of the vehicle under the policy. The trial court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to Geieo’s obligation to defend and provide insurance coverage for Shazier and others using the vehicle and that the Geico policy covered Tercina Jordan based on the permission given by Shazier for the use of the vehicle. Accordingly, the court ruled that, as a matter of law, Geico would be obligated to pay damages, if and when Kutasha Shazier becomes legally obligated to pay damages because of bodily injury sustained by the injured parties in the underlying tort action based on Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine.

On appeal, the First District reversed and ordered the entry of summary judgment in favor of Geico. The district court determined that the rental car did not constitute a “temporary substitute auto,” reasoning as follows:

Under the policy, in order for coverage to attach in this case, the “temporary substitute auto” must have been used with the permission of Avis. As the owner, Avis had the authority to define the scope of permissible use of the rental car. See Duncan Auto Realty, Ltd. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 754 So.2d 863, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“[T]he owner of the temporary substitute vehicle, not its user, possesses the authority to define the scope of permissible use of the substitute vehicle.”). As evidenced by the rental agreement, Avis did just that. Avis granted Shazier permission to use the rental car so long as she was the only person who did so. Jordan’s use of the rental car automatically revoked the permission granted to Shazier by Avis. Therefore, because it was not being used with Avis’s permission, the rental car did not qualify as a “temporary substitute auto” and no coverage existed under the policy.

Geico, 34 So.3d at 43-44.

Petitioners filed separate notices to invoke our jurisdiction and briefs alleging express and direct conflict between the district court’s decision and this Court’s decisions in Susco and Roth. We granted review and consolidated the two cases.

ANALYSIS

The issue in this case stems from a trial court’s ruling on summary judgment based upon the interpretation of an insurance contract which causes our standard of review to be de novo. See Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000) (summary judgment); Kattoum v. N.H. Indent. Co., 968 So.2d 602, 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (insurance policy).

In this case, the district court determined that the rental contract between Avis and Shazier, which prohibited anyone not authorized by Avis from driving the car, governed whether Avis had given its permission for the use of the car within the meaning of Geico’s policy. That is, Geico’s definition of “temporary substitute auto” required that the vehicle be “temporarily used with permission of the owner.” The First District held that because the Avis rental contract between Shazier and Avis did not expressly authorize Jordan to operate the vehicle, the rental car was not being “used with the permission of the owner,” i.e., Avis. Thus, the rental vehicle was deemed a “non-owned auto” instead of a “temporary substitute auto,” and Geico denied coverage under the policy.

Petitioners correctly argue that the First District’s new definition of permission in the context of dangerous instru-mentalities conflicts with our decisions in Susco and Roth as to the meaning of an owner’s consent for the use of a vehicle under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Under that long-established doctrine, liability is imposed on the owner of an automobile who voluntarily entrusts the vehicle to an individual who causes damage to others through the negligent operation of the vehicle. Aurbach v. Gallina, 753 So.2d 60, 62 (Fla.2000); see Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629, 638 (1920) (“[Ojne who authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation to be used by another on the public highway is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by the negligent operation of such instrumentality on the highway by one so authorized by the owner.”). Our decisions have been based on the parameters of an owner’s “consent” or permission for use, the difference between “use” and “operation,” and the means by which consent may be vitiated under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. As explained below, this Court determined in Susco and Roth that under Florida’s common law dangerous instrumentality doctrine, an owner’s, bailee’s, lessee’s, or permittee’s consent to the use of a vehicle cannot be vitiated by invocation of third-party agreements attempting to limit the scope of who may operate a vehicle. We begin our analysis by reviewing the decisions in Susco and American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Blanton, 182 So.2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), and then our decision in Roth, which expressly relied on the prior two cases.

Susco, Blanton, and Roth

Factually, Susco is very similar to the present case in several particulars. There, a bailee rented a car from Susco Car Rental under an agreement that provided that no other person could drive the car without the rental company’s prior written consent. 112 So.2d at 834. The bailee, as with Shazier here, permitted an unauthorized driver to operate the car, and this unauthorized permittee was driving when the subsequent collision occurred. The occupants of the other vehicle involved filed an action, and the trial court entered a summary final judgment in favor of the rental car company. The Third District Court of Appeal, however, reversed. Leonard v. Susco Car Rental Syst. of Fla., Inc., 103 So.2d 243, 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958), aff'd, 112 So.2d 832 (Fla.1959). The disti’ict court rejected the rental company’s contention as owner of the vehicle that because the rental contract prohibited the bailee from permitting an unauthorized driver to operate the vehicle, the rental car owner had no liability to the injured parties. Id. at 246-47.

On review, we agreed and endorsed the district court’s reasoning as follows:

On the fundamental issue, the simple but sound statement of the district court can be unequivocally endorsed:
When this defendant [Susco Car Rental] turns over an automobile to another for a price, he in actuality intrusts that automobile to the renter for all ordinary purposes for which an automobile is rented. The fact that the owner had a private contract or secret agreement with the renter cannot make such restrictions a bar to the rights of the public. The restrictions agreed upon do not change the fact that the automobile was being used with the owner’s consent. Nor does it appear that the car was not being used for the purpose for which it was rented[J ie., the pleasure, convenience or business of the renter.

Susco, 112 So.2d at 834 (emphasis added) (quoting Leonard, 103 So.2d at 247). Thus, in Susco we determined that consent for use was not and could not be limited by an unauthorized operator clause and that the “use” of the rental car did not refer to the operator. Moreover, we held the prohibition on the use of the rental vehicle by other drivers contained within the rental contract could not negate the owner’s liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. We explained that

the logical rule ... is that when control of such a vehicle is voluntarily relinquished to another, only a breach of custody amounting to a species of conversion or theft will relieve an owner of responsibility for its use or misuse. The validity or effect of restrictions on such use, as between the parties, is a matter totally unrelated to the liabilities imposed by law upon one who owns and places in circulation an instrumentality of this nature.

112 So.2d at 835-36 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we defined consent expansively under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine as follows:

In the final analysis, while the rule governing liability of an owner of a dangerous agency who permits it to be used by another is based on consent, the essential authority or consent is simply consent to the use or operation of such an instrumentality beyond his own immediate control. Only to that limited extent is the issue pertinent when members of the public are injured by its operation, and only in a situation where the vehicle is not in operation pursuant to his authority, or where he has in fact been deprived of the incidents of ownership, can such an owner escape responsibility. Certainly the terms of a, bailment, either restricted, or general, can have no bearing upon that question.

Id. at 837 (emphasis added); see Frankel v. Fleming, 69 So.2d 887, 888 (Fla.1954) (“Having held a lessee liable in the cited case ... we find no difficulty in now holding the appellant, a bailee, responsible in the instant case for injury caused by the one to whom he entrusted the car... .”); accord State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Clauson, 511 So.2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“To the same extent as the owner, a bailee (or sub-bailee) of a motor vehicle is liable to third persons under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine for the negligence of one to whom he has entrusted it.”).

The principles we enunciated in Susco were also subsequently applied by the First District in a case not involving a rental car. In American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Blanton, 182 So.2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), the First District examined the application of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine to the meanings of “permission” and “use” under the terms of an insurance policy. In that case, the owner of the vehicle gave his underage son permission to drive the family car from their home to their farm where the boy would help his father. The owner, however, limited that permission by expressly forbidding his son to allow anyone else to ride with him. However, the owner’s son disregarded this directive and invited a friend to ride with him. After school, the owner’s son went home, picked up his friend at a designated spot, and then permitted the friend to drive the car. 182 So.2d at 38. The friend crashed the car into a ditch and injured his arm. The owner’s motor vehicle insurance policy provided for the payment of reasonable medical expenses resulting from an accident for a person injured while the vehicle was “being used by” the named insured, a household resident, or “any other person with the permission of the named insured.” Id. The insurer argued that because the owner had “specifically withheld permission for [his son’s friend] to operate the insured vehicle,” id., neither vicarious liability nor implied permission could be imposed under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Applying our decision in Susco, the district court noted that

implied, permission “has come to have a fixed, definite meaning in this jurisdiction” under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, which is to the effect that the owner of a motor vehicle is relieved from responsibility for its use or misuse only upon a breach of custody amounting to a species of conversion or theft.

Id. at 38. Accordingly, when the owner permitted the use of the car, he was liable for injuries resulting from its negligent operation. Id. at 39. Moreover, “[w]here ‘original entrustment’ is shown to exist, liability thus imposed on the owner will not be altered because of a departure beyond the scope of authority.” Id,. Thus, just as in Susco we determined that the owner’s consent for use was not limited by a prohibition on other unauthorized operators, the district court held that the father’s prohibition on other passengers or operators was not effective to avoid liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.

Finally, Roth, like Susco and the case here on review, involved a rental contract that attempted to prohibit the renter or bailee from permitting another driver to operate the rental car and the question of an exclusion to liability insurance coverage. Roth, 269 So.2d at 4. The bailee rented a car from Yellow Rent-a-Car and with the rental fee paid a premium for automobile liability insurance coverage with the rental company’s insurer. In the rental contract, the bailee also agreed that no other drivers were authorized. Nevertheless, the bailee allowed another person to operate the car, and the permittee subsequently struck two pedestrians. The injured pedestrians filed an action against the permittee, the bailee, and the rental car agency that owned the vehicle. The action was settled when the permittee’s insurer advanced the funds for the settlement. The question before us was whether the permittee’s insurer was entitled to indemnity from both the rental car owner and the original bailee of the vehicle. Id. at 5. In answering the question, we relied on Susco and Blanton in determining that, despite the prohibition against other drivers in the contract, the bailee’s insurer, as well as the owner’s insurer, covered the permittee:

Susco recognizes that a bailee or lessee of a rented automobile, similarly as its oumer, may permit another to operate it (and often does) and the latter’s negligent operation of it renders the oumer vicariously liable, together with his liability insurer, under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, despite an agreement between the oumer and the lessee to the contrary. See American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Blanton, [182 So.2d 36, 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) ]. A necessary legal corollary to this recognition in Susco is that the oumer and the lessee’s insurance coverage under financial responsibility (in this instance afforded by Old Republic) covers the lessee’s permittee as well. ...
The Susco and Blanton cases recognize that in the very nature of modern automobile use a lessee of a rental car often has to turn the car over to car park, garage, or filling station personnel and others for temporary operation and that it would be unreasonable to negate the rental car agency’s liability and its insurance coverage in case of accident because of the existence of a collateral or side agreement of the kind here involved. Often such permittees of rental car lessees temporarily driving rental ears would not be as fortunate as [the permittee] and have the protection of their own personal auto liability insurance coverage, rendering it even more difficult for injured members of the public to recover their losses arising from the negligence of drivers of rental cars.

Id. at 6-7 (emphasis added).

It is apparent from the foregoing analysis that we have previously applied a very broad and consistent definition for consent regarding an owner’s entrustment of a vehicle to another and that such consent for the use of a vehicle is not limited by the identity of the operator. This broad definition serves the interests of Florida’s public policy. Accordingly, the constriction of the meaning of consent in Shazier expressly and directly conflicts with our decisions in both Susco and Roth.

Resolving the Conflict

The conflict in this case is based on the interpretation of an insurance contract upon application of well-established Florida law. Accordingly, we must first review the principles applicable to the interpretation of a contract of insurance. First, the contract must be construed “in accordance with the plain language.” Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29, 34 (Fla.2000). Where the policy language “is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and ... another limiting coverage, the insurance policy is considered ambiguous.” Id. The ambiguous language is then construed “against the drafter and in favor of the insured” and “exclusionary clauses are construed even more strictly against the insurer than coverage clauses.” Id.

Clearly, neither Geico nor the district court applied the above principles in resolving the issue in the district court. Under the Geico policy, a “temporary substitute auto” is a vehicle not owned by the insured but which is “temporarily used with the permission of the owner” “as a substitute” for the insured’s vehicle. Although a “temporary substitute auto” is by definition not owned by the insured, Gei-co’s policy provides that such a vehicle is treated as the insured’s owned auto under the policy and that Geico will cover the insured and “any other person using the auto with [the insured’s] permission.” However, the “actual use must be within the scope of that permission.” Although the policy does not define “permission,” we determined in Susco and Roth that under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, consent “is simply consent to the use or operation of such an instrumentality beyond [the owner’s] immediate control,” Susco, 112 So.2d at 837, and that consent cannot be vitiated except by “a species of conversion or theft.” Id. at 836. Under this precedent, it is clear that Avis consented or gave its permission to Shazier to use the vehicle. Under the Geico policy, and the principles stated above, the vehicle then became a “temporary substitute auto” that Geico covered as if it were the insured’s own vehicle. Geico’s use of the prohibition on unauthorized drivers contained in the rental contract to which it was not a party is thus inconsistent with Susco and Roth and the principles of insurance contract interpi-etation.

The district court’s reliance on Duncan Auto Realty, Ltd. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 754 So.2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), as determinative of this case is misplaced. In Duncan, Calixto Garcia’s company owned several vehicles insured under a commercial automobile policy that provided for “temporary substitute auto” coverage. The insurance policy defined the term:

3. Any “auto ” you do not own while used with the permission of its owner as a temporary substitute for a covered “auto ” you own that is out of service because of its: (a) breakdown, (b) repair, (c) servicing, (d) “loss” or (e) destruction.

754 So.2d at 864. Garcia decided to trade in one vehicle due to mechanical problems and went to a dealership where he test drove a new truck with the dealer’s permission. During the test drive, Garcia had a collision, and the injured party sued Garcia, his company, and the auto dealer. Garcia’s insurer contended it had no duty to indemnify Garcia or his company because the truck Garcia test drove was not a “temporary substitute auto.” The Third District Court of Appeal agreed, stating that for coverage to attach in this case, the “temporary substitute vehicle” must have been performing a function that the disabled insured vehicle would have been performing but for its temporary disability. Duncan, 754 So.2d at 865. The court continued as follows:

Moreover, the owner of the temporary substitute vehicle, not its user, possesses the authority to define the scope of permissible use of the substitute vehicle. In this case, without question, the auto dealer only granted Garcia use of its truck for a routine test drive. Garcia did not have permission to utilize the auto dealer’s truck in Southwind’s business affairs in the same manner that he could have used the Ford F250. Thus, we fail to see how the auto dealer’s truck could possibly be deemed a “temporary substitute auto” under Allstate policy.

Id. (citing 8 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance § 117:86 (3d ed. 1997)).

Incorrectly seizing on the Third District’s statement, not applicable here, that the owner has the authority to define the “scope of permissible use,” the First District in this case concluded that Avis limited the scope of the car’s permissible use in this case by giving “Shazier permission to use the rental car so long as she was the only person who did so.” 34 So.3d at 44. This erroneous conclusion is based on a misunderstanding and misapplication of the difference between the concept of consent for use and the identity of the operator. The subsequent paragraphs of the cited section from Couch explain this difference:

As in the case of non-owned automobile coverage, the temporary substitute clause may require that the use be “with the permission of the owner” of the substitute vehicle. The permission required under the temporary substitute clause relates only to the purpose for which permission was given by the owner of the substitute automobile and not to the identity of the operator, and will cover use of the substitute automobile by another individual, regardless of whether that person has express or implied authorization to drive the car, provided such use is for a permitted purpose. Once the owner’s permission to use the substitute vehicle is revoked, the vehicle ceases to be a “temporary substitute car” under the insured’s policy.

Couch on Insurance § 117:86 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). Thus, the Duncan case was decided on the basis of the scope of use, i.e., a test drive. The car owner gave permission for Garcia to test drive the vehicle; the car owner did not give Garcia permission to use the vehicle in his business. Limiting the scope of permissible use is not limited by who is operating the car. As we stated in Susco, the “restrictions agreed upon [in an unauthorized driver clause] do not change the fact that the automobile was being used with the owner’s consent.” 112 So.2d at 835 (quoting Leonard v. Susco Car Rental Sys., 103 So.2d 243, 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)).

In Blanton, the First District previously recognized the distinction between “use” and the “identity of the operator.” Examining the insurance provision in that case, which covered any person injured while occupying the owned vehicle when it was being used by a resident of the insured’s household, the district court stated:

The use of an automobile denotes its employment for some purpose of the user; the word ‘operation’ denotes the manipulation of the car’s controls in order to propel it as a vehicle. Use is thus broader than operation. ... One who operates a car uses it, ... but one can use a car without operating it.

182 So.2d at 39 (quoting Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co., 33 N.J. 507, 166 A.2d 355 (1960)). Accordingly, the district court stated the “general rule that a permittee may not allow a third party to ‘use’ the named insured’s car” could not preclude recovery by the injured party because

[ujnder such circumstances the second permittee is “operating” the car for the “use” of the first permittee and such “use” is within the coverage of the omnibus clause. The operation by a third person under such circumstances falls within the protection of the omnibus clause even where such operation is specifically forbidden by the named insured.

Id.

In concluding that Shazier did not have permission to use the rental car, the district court misunderstood and misapplied the difference between use and operation and apparently totally disregarded the meaning of consent or permission under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. By doing so, the court construed the insurance contract against the insured and approved Geico’s use of a private third-party contract prohibiting unauthorized drivers from avoiding liability in contradiction of Florida’s substantive law as reflected in Susco and Roth. Geico’s policy defined “temporary substitute auto” as a vehicle not owned by the insured that is “temporarily used with the permission of the owner ... as a substitute for the owned auto.” Thus, although the insured does not actually own the car, Geico covers a substitute auto as if it were owned by the insured as long the real owner gave permission for its use. Avis entrusted the car to Shazier for profit, and Shazier rented the vehicle to use as a temporary substitute for her own disabled Ford Expedition. See Gov’t Emp. Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 184 Ohio App.3d 397, 921 N.E.2d 269, 274 (2009) (“[T]he policy in this case simply provides coverage when a vehicle that is not titled to the policyholder is being ‘temporarily used with the permission of the owner ... as a substitute for the owned auto.’ The only person that could be using the vehicle as a substitute for the owned auto would be the policyholder; thus, that same person is the one that must be using the vehicle ‘with the permission of the owner.’”). Accordingly, under the terms of Geico’s policy, Shazier had the permission of the owner of the vehicle, and the car became the insured’s “owned car” under the Geico policy at that moment. Sha-zier’s “owned car” by definition was being used with her permission at the time of the collision, and Geico cannot escape liability contrary to Florida law. This interpretation of the contract is consistent not only with our substantive law and our public policy, but also consistent with the standards for interpreting an insurance contract.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing discussion, we quash the First District’s decision and direct that judgment be entered in favor of the insureds and injured parties. In addition, we decline to review the collateral issue asserted by Geico in its answer brief. See Bifulco v. Patient Bus. & Fin. Sen., Inc., 39 So.3d 1255, 1256 n. 3 (Fla.2010) (declining review of claim beyond scope of conflict).

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

CANADY, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which POLSTON, J., concurs.

CANADY, C.J.,

dissenting.

Because there is no express and direct conflict of decisions underpinning the Court’s review, I would deny review and discharge this case for lack of jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

The First District’s decision in Geico Indemnity Co. v. Shazier, 34 So.3d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), is clearly distinguishable from our decisions in Susco Car Rental System of Florida v. Leonard, 112 So.2d 832 (Fla.1959), and Roth v. Old Republic Insurance Co., 269 So.2d 3 (Fla.1972), on both the facts and the law. Our decisions in the alleged conflict cases specifically addressed and resolved questions regarding a vehicle owner’s vicarious liability under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. See Susco, 112 So.2d at 835-37; Roth, 269 So.2d at 6-7. In contrast, the district court in the case on review determined that an insured’s rental car did not qualify as a “temporary substitute auto” under the terms of her personal automobile insurance policy. Geico, 34 So.3d at 43-44. As a result, her policy provided no coverage for the collision involving the rental car. Id. Thus, unlike the alleged conflict cases, the district court’s decision does not involve the liability of either the vehicle owner or its insurer, and the opinion never mentions the concept of ■vicarious liability.

Geico is further distinguishable from our decision in Roth because Roth expressly relied on the Financial Responsibility Law, § 324.151(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1969), governing insurance coverage required of owners of rental cars. Roth, 269 So.2d at 7 (stating that separate agreement between vehicle owner and lessee “for public policy reasons cannot vary, circumvent or intercept the flow of protection to [the permit-tee] and injured members of the public emanating from the Financial Responsibility Law which was confirmed by the terms of the [insurance] policy”). Geico did not involve that law.

Given the operative facts and the issues addressed in Susco and Roth, those decisions do not expressly and directly conflict with the First District’s decision in Geico. There is no basis for the exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, I dissent.

POLSTON, J., concurs.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    In re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA SMALL CLAIMS RULES.
    No. SC11-1714.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Dec. 15, 2011.
    Judson L. Cohen, Chair, Small Claims Rules Committee, Cohen Law Offices, Miami, FL, John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Krys Godwin, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.
   PER CURIAM.

The Small Claims Rules Committee (Committee) has filed an out-of-cycle report proposing an amendment to Florida Small Claims Rule 7.040 (Clerical and Administrative Duties of Clerk). We have jurisdiction and adopt the amendment as proposed.

In In re Implementation of Committee on Privacy and Court Records Recommendations, 78 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011), the Court adopted amendments to the rules of court and forms intended to minimize the amount of unnecessary personal information included in documents filed with the courts. Most notably, the Court adopted new Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425 (Minimization of sensitive personal information) to govern the filing of sensitive personal information. The Court also adopted conforming amendments to most of the other bodies of rules and forms. However, the Court did not adopt conforming amendments to the Small Claims Rules because the Small Claims Rules Committee asked the Court to postpone amending those rules until the Committee had an opportunity to consider the version of rule 2.425 the Court ultimately adopted. Slip op. at 13 n. 23. In the opinion adopting rule 2.425, the Court directed the Committee to propose conforming amendments to the Small Claims Rules. Id. The proposed amendment to rule 7.040 (Clerical and Administrative Duties of Clerk) is in response to the Court’s direction. The proposed amendment was approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar by a vote of 11-0.

After considering the proposed amendment, we amend subdivision (a)(2) of rule 7.040, as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. As amended, the rule requires that entries of all small claims actions and notations of proceedings in the docket and judgment books maintained by the clerk of court “comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425.” New language is underscored in the appendix. The amendments shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion. Because the amendments were not published for comment prior to their adoption, interested persons shall have sixty days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

RULE 7.040. CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES OF CLERK

(a) Generally. The clerk of the circuit court or the clerk of the county court in those counties where such a clerk is provided (hereinafter referred to as the clerk) shall:

(1) maintain a trial calendar. The placing of any action thereon with the date and time of trial is notice to all concerned of the oi'der in which they may expect such action to be called;

(2) maintain a docket book and a judgment book (which may be the same book) in which accurate entries of all actions brought before the court and notations of the proceedings shall comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425 and shall be made including the date of filing; the date of issuance, service, and return of process; the appearance of such parties as may appear; the fact of trial, whether by court or jury; the issuance of execution and to whom issued and the date thereof and return thereon and, when satisfied, a marginal entry of the date thereof; the issuance of a certified copy; a memorandum of the items of costs including witness fees; and the record of the verdict of the jury or finding of the judge, and the judgment, including damages and costs, which judgments may be kept in a separate judgment book; and

(3) maintain an alphabetical index by parties names with reference to action and case number.

(b) [No Change]

Court Commentary

[No Change]

      . See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(f).

      . An original and nine paper copies of all comments must be filed with the Court on or before February 13, 2012, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the committee chair, Judson Lee Cohen, Cohen Law Offices, 1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2900, Miami, Florida 33131-1711, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. The committee chair has until March 5, 2012, to file a response to any comments filed with the Court. Electronic copies of all comments and responses also must be filed in accordance with the Court's administrative order In re Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-84 (Sept. 13, 2004).


author: QUINCE, J. • CANADY, C.J.,

text:
    Christopher JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC09-1045.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Jan. 5, 2012.
    Pariente, J., concurred in the result.
    Canady, C.J., filed opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part joined by Pol-ston, J.

      Philip Massa, Director, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Fourth District, and Melanie L. Casper, Assistant Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, FL, for Petitioner.
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul E. Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, FL, and Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Diane F. Medley, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.
   QUINCE, J.

This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Johnson v. State, 6 So.3d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The district court’s decision expressly affects a class of constitutional or state officers. Additionally, the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (RCC) alleges the Fourth District’s decision expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of the Third District in State v. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 12 So.3d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“Public Defender”), review granted, 34 So.3d 2 (Fla.2010), on the same question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we approve in part and quash in part the decision of the Fourth District.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case began when codefendants Christopher Johnson and James Mayfield were charged for a robbery with a firearm and carjacking in Broward County. Due to a conflict of interest, Johnson was appointed private counsel, paid for by the State. After being found guilty, both defendants appealed their convictions to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

The appellate public defender filed a motion for leave to withdraw as Johnson’s counsel on the basis of conflict because the public defender was already representing codefendant Mayfield in an appeal stemming from his conviction in the same case. The Office of the Attorney General did not object to the public defender’s withdrawal. However, RCC objected to the withdrawal. The public defender argued that RCC lacked standing to challenge the public defender’s motion to withdraw and that conflicts inherent in representing codefen-dants eliminated the necessity for fact-finding in the trial court. RCC responded that conflict at the trial level does not automatically apply at the appellate level and there must be a showing of an actual conflict in order for RCC to be appointed for representation.

After hearing argument from the parties, the Fourth District granted the public defender’s motion to withdraw and appointed RCC to represent Johnson in his appeal. The Fourth District concluded that the plain language of section 27.511(8), Florida Statutes (2008), provides that the public defender’s certification of conflict alone is sufficient to shift representation of the defendant to RCC. Johnson, 6 So.3d at 1266. The Fourth District explained that this statute “places the determination of the existence of a conflict in the hands of the [public defender] — without any inquiry by an appellate court.” Id. Under the Fourth District’s interpretation of the statute, if the public defender “certifies conflict then RCC shall handle the appeal.” Id. The Fourth District further concluded that section 27.5303(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), only authorizes factual inquiries into the adequacy of the public defender’s representations regarding conflict by trial courts, not when the appellate public defender certifies conflict. Id. at 1266-67. The Fourth District also noted that a trial court’s finding of conflict in representing codefendants will be deemed valid for the codefendants’ appeals as well. Id. at 1267. Finally, the district court concluded that RCC has no standing to object to a public defender’s motion to withdraw. Id. In reaching this conclusion, the district court relied on the fact that section 27.5303(l)(a), which gave the Justice Administrative Commission standing to challenge a public defender’s motions, was repealed in 2007 and no other statute gave RCC standing to challenge a public defender’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 1268. Furthermore, the district court stated it would no longer relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for an inquiry in such cases. Id. Instead, if the public defender certifies conflict, then RCC will represent the client unless RCC certifies its own conflict. Id.

RCC sought review in this Court based on express and direct conflict with the decision of the Third District in Public Defender and because the Fourth District’s decision affects a class of constitutional or state officers, i.e., all RCC offices in the state. In Public Defender, the Third District held that the state attorneys had standing to challenge public defender motions to withdraw based on the state attorney’s status as a party in the case and the state attorney’s statutory obligations. RCC argues that Public Defender also implied that RCC has standing to oppose such motions when the court stated that RCC’s motion to intervene was properly denied because it was untimely. Id. at 800 n. 2.

RCC also asserts that this Court has jurisdiction to review the Fourth District’s decision because the court’s ruling that RCC lacks standing to oppose the public defender’s motion to withdraw, Johnson, 6 So.3d at 1267, affects a class of state officers. We agree. The Fourth District’s decision as to standing will affect RCC’s power to oppose motions to withdraw filed by public defenders. Because the district court based its decision on statutory interpretation, the decision is applicable to all RCC offices around the state, thus affecting the entire class of state officers.

While RCC did not make this argument in its petition for review, we also conclude that the decision below expressly affects the powers of public defenders to withdraw from cases. The district court decision effectively expands the powers of public defenders to withdraw from cases by finding that when a public defender certifies a conflict at the appellate level the case will automatically be transferred to RCC without a determination from a district court of appeal. Id. at 1266.

ANALYSIS

The underlying case involves a judicial interpretation of the application of sections 27.511(8) and 27.5303(l)(a) and whether RCC has standing to challenge a public defender’s motion to withdraw. In order to address these issues, we must discuss the underlying right to counsel and the general principles of statutory interpretation.

I. Right to Counsel

Criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), and article I, section 16 of the Florida Constitution. In addition, this Court has acknowledged that “the right to effective assistance of counsel encompasses the right to representation free from actual conflict.” Hunter v. State, 817 So.2d 786, 791 (Fla.2002). Conflict-of-interest cases usually arise at the trial level, but can arise at any level of the judicial process where one attorney represents two or more clients. Barclay v. Wainwright, 444 So.2d 956, 958 (Fla.1984) (granting habeas relief based on appellate counsel’s conflict of interest in representing two codefendants). Generally, an attorney has an ethical obligation to avoid conflicts of interest and should advise the court when one arises. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 346, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). An actual conflict of interest that adversely affects a lawyer’s performance violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Id. at 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708. A conflict occurs “whenever one defendant stands to gain significantly by counsel adducing probative evidence or advancing plausible arguments that are damaging to the cause of a codefendant whom counsel is also representing.” Foxworth v. Wainright, 516 F.2d 1072, 1076 (5th Cir.1975).

In an effort to meet its responsibility to provide counsel to indigent defendants, as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment and applied to the states in Gideon v. Wainwright, the Florida Legislature first established the Office of the Public Defender in 1963. See ch. 63-^09, § 1, Laws of Fla. (enacting section 27.50, Florida Statutes (1963), which created the Office of the Public Defender). The Legislature subsequently approved a proposal to amend the Florida Constitution and elevate the Office of the Public Defender to the level of a constitutional officer, which was approved by the electorate and adopted in 1972. See art. V, § 18, Fla. Const.; see also Summary of Amendment Revising Florida Court Structure, Senate Joint Res. No. 52D (noting that “[t]he position of public defender gains constitutional status” in article V in the 1972 amendment).

The public defender in each circuit is primarily responsible for representing indigent defendants who have been charged or arrested for an enumerated list of criminal offenses and in a limited number of civil proceedings. See § 27.51(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). However, in those cases where the public defender has a conflict of interest, the Legislature provided for the appointment of RCC. See § 27.511(5), Fla. Stat. (2008). As this Court previously explained, “The Legislature’s primary intent [in establishing RCC] was to create a backup system to handle those cases in which a public defender has a conflict and to do so in a fiscally sound manner in accordance with constitutional principles of due process.” Crist v. Fla. Ass’n of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 978 So.2d 134, 148 (Fla.2008). If RCC has a conflict, the court appoints private counsel from the registry. § 27.40(2), Fla. Stat. (2008).

Section 27.5303, which addresses conflicts of interest by the public defender and RCC, provides that in determining whether or not there is a conflict of interest, the public defender and RCC “shall apply the standards contained in the Uniform Standards for Use in Conflict of Interest Cases found in appendix C to the Final Report of the Article V Indigent Services Advisory Board dated January 6, 2004.” § 27.5303(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (2008). The Uniform Standards contained in the Advisory Board’s report devote an entire section to conflicts of interest involving co-defendants and set out several general considerations involving the representation of codefendants. While the Uniform Standards provide that joint representation of codefendants is not per se violative of the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel, they also warn that multiple representation “engenders special dangers” and “is suspect,” as explained by the United States Supreme Court in Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988), and Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 489, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978). Article V Indigent Servs. Advisory Bd., Final Report at 73 (2004), available at http://www. flcourtsl8.org/PDF/articleV_final_report. pdf. This Court has also recognized that the “interests and defenses of most co-defendants are conflicting.” Baker v. State, 202 So.2d 563, 566 (Fla.1967).

In light of these considerations, the Uniform Standards “strongly advise” attorneys to follow Standard 4-8.5 of the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, which counsels that the potential for conflict of interest in representing multiple codefen-dants “is so grave that ordinarily defense counsel should decline to act for more than one of several codefendants except in unusual situations.” Final Report at 78 (quoting Standards for Cñminal Justice: Prosecution Function and Defense Function § 4-3.5 (3d ed. 1993)). The Uniform Standards also provide that “[ejarly withdrawal from joint representation conserves public defender resources, avoids delay, and better serves the client.” Id. at 74. Public defenders are warned that persisting in joint representation until both clients are interviewed and an actual conflict is discovered is likely to result in the public defender having to withdraw from representing both clients. Id.

In determining whether a conflict of interest applies to joint representation of codefendants, the Uniform Standards advise attorneys to consider the following: (1) whether it appears that the attorney will have an opportunity to negotiate a plea in one of the cases; (2) whether one client is more culpable than the other; (3) whether the defense of one client will be inconsistent or antagonistic to the defense of the others; (4) whether one of the clients has given a statement to the police; (5) whether the co-defendants gave conflicting accounts of the events; and (6) whether one of the client’s past record, family history, etc., is so different from the other that an argument could be made that one defendant should receive a lighter sentence. Id. at 74-75.

II. Statutory Interpretation

Judicial interpretations of statutes are pure questions of law subject to de novo review. State v. Sigler, 967 So.2d 835, 841 (Fla.2007). “[LJegislative intent guides statutory analysis, and to discern that intent we must look first to the language of the statute and its plain meaning.” Tasker v. State, 48 So.3d 798, 804 (Fla.2010) (quoting Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Sens. v. P.E., 14 So.3d 228, 234 (Fla.2009)). “[LJegislative intent is determined primarily from the text” of the statute. Id. (quoting Continental Cas. Co. v. Ryan Inc. Eastern, 974 So.2d 368, 374 (Fla.2008)). “Where the statute’s language is clear or unambiguous, courts need not employ principles of statutory construction to determine and effectuate legislative intent.” Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 14 So.3d at 234.

Thus, we begin our analysis with careful consideration of the text of the statutes at issue. Section 27.511(8), Florida Statutes (2008), provides:

The public defender for the judicial circuit specified in s. 27.51(4) shall, after the record on appeal is transmitted to the appellate court by the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel which handled the trial and if requested by the regional counsel for the indicated appellate district, handle all circuit court appeals authorized pursuant to paragraph (5)(f) within the state courts system and any authorized appeals to the federal courts required of the official making the request. If the public defender certifies to the court that the public defender has a conflict consistent with the criteria prescribed in s. 27.5303 and moves to withdraw, the regional counsel shall handle the appeal, unless the regional counsel has a conflict, in which case the court shall appoint private counsel pursuant to s. 27.40.

The Fourth District concluded that this statute specifically governs conflicts relating to the appellate public defender. Because the last sentence of the statute provides that if the public defender “certifies ... conflict consistent with the criteria” specified in [section] 27.5303 and “moves to withdraw, the regional counsel shall handle the appeal,” the Fourth District concluded that appellate courts are not authorized to review such motions or to inquire into the adequacy of the conflict representations (as section 27.5303(l)(a) specifies) and certification of conflict by the appellate public defender must result in appointment of RCC. Johnson, 6 So.3d at 1266. We disagree with the Fourth District’s interpretation as it is not consistent with the history of the statute or the Legislature’s stated intent in amending the statute to include the language which the Fourth District relies upon.

Section 27.511 is entitled “Offices of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel; legislative intent; qualifications; appointment; duties.” § 27.511, Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added). Section 27.511(8) was created in 2007 when the Legislature established the RCC. See ch. 2007-62, § 4, Laws of Fla. The original version of the statute provided that “[t]he office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel shall handle all circuit court appeals within the state courts system and any authorized appeals to the federal courts which are required in cases in which the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel is appointed under this section.” § 27.511(8), Fla. Stat. (2007). While the staff analysis of the bill does not address subsection (8) specifically, it does state that section 27.511 was created to establish RCC, which “shall provide representation on the same types of cases as the public defender” when the case is assigned to regional counsel because “the public defender has a conflict.” Fla. S. Comm, on Crim. & Civ. Just. Approp., PCS for SB 1088 (2007), Staff Analysis 2 (Mar. 19, 2007). Subsection (8), which is quoted in full above, was amended by the Legislature at its next session in 2008. According to the staff analysis of the bill, the 2008 amendment “clarif[ies] that the public defender appellate offices are to handle indigent criminal appeals unless there is a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict, the regional conflict counsel shall take the case.” Fla. S. Comm, on Crim. & Civ. Just. Approp., PCS for SB 1790 (2008), Staff Analysis 3 (Mar. 31, 2008). There is no discussion of changing the standards for appellate court consideration of motions to withdraw. Further, as the title of the section indicates, the statute was intended to create RCC, state the legislative intent for creating RCC, list the qualifications for RCC and how RCC should be appointed, and list the duties of RCC, which include representation on appeals if the public defender has a conflict.

Additionally, the language and history of section 27.5303(l)(a) do not support the Fourth District’s interpretation of the statutes. Under the Fourth District’s interpretation, if the appellate public defender certifies conflict then RCC shall handle the appeal. Section 27.5303 is entitled “Public defenders; criminal conflict and civil regional counsel; conflict of interest.” § 27.5303, Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added). In fact, the whole subject matter of section 27.5303 is conflicts of interest, the appointment of other counsel when a conflict occurs, and how a conflict is to be determined. Subsection (l)(a) specifically addresses conflicts involving a public defender and provides in pertinent part:

If, at any time during the representation of two or more defendants, a public defender determines that the interests of those accused are so adverse or hostile that they cannot all be counseled by the public defender or his or her staff without conflict of interest, or that none can be counseled by the public defender or his or her staff because of a conflict of interest, then the public defender shall file a motion to withdraw and move the court to appoint other counsel. The court shall review and may inquire or conduct a hearing into the adequacy of the public defender’s representations regarding a conflict of interest without requiring the disclosure of any confidential communications. The court shall deny the motion to withdraw if the court finds the grounds for withdrawal are insufficient or the asserted conflict is not prejudicial to the indigent client. If the court grants the motion to withdraw, the court shall appoint one or more attorneys to represent the accused, as provided in s. 27.40.

§ 27.5303(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008).

This provision was originally contained in section 27.53(3) of the Florida Statutes. In Guzman v. State, 644 So.2d 996 (Fla.1994), superseded by ch. 99-282, § 1, Laws of Fla., as recognized in Snelgrove v. State, 921 So.2d 560, 566 n. 11 (Fla.2005), this Court reversed a defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder and his death sentence because the trial court erroneously denied the public defender’s motion to withdraw based on conflicts of interest between Guzman and other clients of the public defender’s office. Id. at 997. This Court stated that once a public defender moves to withdraw based on a conflict due to adverse or hostile interests between two clients under section 27.53(3), the trial court must grant separate representation. Id. at 999. At the time, the statute provided that if a public defender determined that the interests of the clients were adverse or hostile, the public defender had a duty to move the court to appoint other counsel and the court could appoint another member of the Florida Bar to represent the accused. § 27.53(3), Fla. Stat. (1991). Following this Court’s decision in Guzman, the Legislature amended section 27.53(3) to provide that under such circumstances the public defender shall file a motion to withdraw and the court “shall review and may inquire or conduct a hearing into the adequacy of the public defender’s representations regarding a conflict of interest without requiring the disclosure of any confidential communications. The court shall permit withdrawal unless the court determines that the asserted conflict is not prejudicial to the indigent client. If the court grants the motion to withdraw, it may appoint [a member of the Bar] ... to represent those accused.” Ch. 99-282, § 1, at 3084-85, Laws of Fla.

The staff analysis of the bill specifically references this Court’s opinion in Guzman, noting that “[although the statute uses permissive language, according to the Florida Supreme Court, when a public defender certifies that there is conflict of interest, the trial court must grant the motion to withdraw ... [and] may not reweigh the facts that gave rise to the public defender’s determination that a conflict exists.” Fla. H.R. Comm, on Crime & Pun., CS for HB 327 (1999) Staff Analysis 2 (final June 14,1999). The amended statute provides for the court to review the adequacy of the public defender’s representations as to conflict and to inquire further, if necessary. Thus, the amendment was intended to change this Court’s previous interpretation of how motions to withdraw should be handled. Under the amended statute, a court is no longer required to automatically grant a public defender’s motion to withdraw based upon an assertion of conflict. In fact, the court is specifically charged with reviewing the motion and making a determination of whether the asserted conflict is prejudicial to the client.

In 2003, this provision was moved to section 27.5303 as part of a comprehensive bill dealing with the implementation of Revision 7 to Article V of the Florida Constitution. Fla. H.R. Comm, on Ap-prop., HB 113A (2003), Staff Analysis 1 (May 14, 2003). The staff analysis dealing with “Conflict motions” states that the bill “expressly directs judges to look into the adequacy of the motion to withdraw due to an ethical conflict.” Id. at 7. The analysis also notes that “[cjurrently, there appears to be some difference of opinion concerning the extent to which the court can inquire into the sufficiency of a motion filed by a public defender to withdraw from representation due to an ethical conflict of interest.” Id.

The plain language of section 27.5303(l)(a) specifies when it applies and what action the public defender and court must take. The opening sentence provides that “[i]f, at any time” during the representation of multiple defendants a public defender determines that they cannot all be counseled without a conflict of interest, then the public defender “shall file a motion to withdraw and move the court to appoint other counsel.” § 27.5303(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added). The second sentence of the statute provides: “The court shall review and may inquire or conduct a hearing into the adequacy of the public defender’s representations regarding a conflict of interest....” Id. (emphasis added). The third sentence provides: “The court shall deny the motion to withdraw if the court finds the grounds for withdrawal are insufficient or the asserted conflict is not prejudicial to the indigent client.” Id. (emphasis added). The next sentence provides: “If the court grants the motion to withdraw, the court shall appoint one or more attorneys to represent the accused.... ” Id. (emphasis added). This language clearly indicates that the statute applies at any time a conflict arises, not just at the trial level. It also indicates that the public defender must file a motion to withdraw and that court review is mandatory.

We reject the public defender’s argument that this statute cannot apply to appellate courts because appellate courts do not conduct hearings as the second sentence of the statute provides. In fact, appellate courts do review motions for their adequacy and can direct further inquiry on motions through orders to show cause or by scheduling oral argument. Moreover, when section 27.511(8) and section 27.5303(l)(a) are read in pari materia, there is no contradiction in the statutes and one can discern a reconciled legislative intent that courts review all motions to withdraw, at both the trial and appellate level, and make further inquiry if necessary.

In light of the plain language, the titles of the statutes, and the legislative history of sections 27.511(8) and 27.5303(l)(a), we disagree with the Fourth District’s interpretation of the statutes. Instead, we hold that section 27.5303(l)(a) governs all public defender motions to withdraw based on conflict, both at the trial and appellate level, and the court where the motion is filed is required to review such motions for sufficiency.

III. Standing

The Fourth District also ruled that RCC has no standing to object to a public defender’s motion to withdraw. For the reasons explained below, we agree and approve that part of the Fourth District’s decision.

“Determining whether a party has standing is a pure question of law to be reviewed de novo.” Sanchez v. Century Everglades, LLC, 946 So.2d 563, 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quoting Alachua County v. Scharps, 855 So.2d 195, 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)). Generally, standing “requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006); see generally Brown v. Firestone, 382 So.2d 654, 662 (Fla.1980) (“[T]his Court has long been committed to the rule that a party does not possess standing to sue unless he or she can demonstrate a direct and articulable stake in the outcome of a controversy.”); Weiss v. Johansen, 898 So.2d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“Standing depends on whether a party has a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy, with a legally cognizable interest which would be affected by the outcome of the litigation.”). Thus, standing to bring or participate in a particular legal proceeding often depends on the nature of the interest asserted.

In In re Order on Prosecution of Criminal Appeals by Tenth Judicial Circuit Public Defender, 561 So.2d 1130 (Fla.1990) (“Prosecution of Criminal Appeals ”), and Escambia County v. Behr, 384 So.2d 147, 150 (Fla.1980), this Court held that a court considering a motion for withdrawal by the public defender “does not have to ... allow the county an opportunity to be heard before appointing private counsel,” even though, at that time, the county would bear the financial burden of compensating the appointed private counsel. Behr, 384 So.2d at 150; see also Prosecution of Criminal Appeals, 561 So.2d at 1138 (reaffirming statement from Behr). Thus, a financial obligation to pay the appointed counsel was not a sufficient stake in the outcome to give the counties standing to be heard on the motion to withdraw.

The Third District was presented with a similar issue on standing in State v. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 12 So.3d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The Third District was asked to determine whether the State had standing to oppose a motion to withdraw by the public defender. The Third District noted that unlike the counties in In re Prosecution and Behr, the State is a party to the criminal cases and is treated by statute differently than the counties. Public Defender, 12 So.3d at 801. The state attorney has a statutory obligation to “appear in the circuit and county courts within his or her judicial circuit and prosecute or defend on behalf of the state all suits, applications, or motions, civil or criminal, in which the state is a party.” Id. (citing § 27.02(1), Fla. Stat. (2004)). Thus, the Third District concluded, the State has standing to challenge motions filed by the public defender.

We conclude that the instant case is analogous to In re Prosecution and Behr. While RCC has an articulable stake in the outcome of the proceedings, similar to the counties, its statutory duty of representation only arises when the court grants a public defender’s motion to withdraw based on a conflict of interest. Similarly, in In re Prosecution and Behr, the counties only had a responsibility to fund private counsel if the public defender was permitted to withdraw due to a conflict. Unlike the State in Public Defender, RCC does not seek standing based on its status as a party in the case. In Public Defender, the Third District’s determination of standing was based on the State’s status as a party, as well as the statutory obligation of state attorneys to prosecute or defend on behalf of the State.

Additionally, as this Court held in Behr, “the court has the option of appointing the public defender or private counsel. This is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court judge. The court does not have to make any prerequisite findings or allow the county an opportunity to be heard before appointing private counsel.” 384 So.2d at 150. Likewise, the court does not have to allow RCC an opportunity to be heard before granting a public defender’s motion to withdraw.

Because RCC is not a party, it is not in the best position to address the determination of conflict. As the Fourth District explained:

The determination that a conflict results from representation of multiple defendants in any court is an issue turning on privileged facts lying beneath the professional judgment of the [public defender] — facts that are simply incapable of being made known in court without compromising the client. The decision to assert such a conflict resides in the presumed good faith of lawyers as officers of the court having the duty to avoid such conflicts. The lawyer involved in the case is the person with the primary responsibility of avoiding unethical representation and of asserting and protecting the interests of the defendant.

Johnson, 6 So.3d at 1268. Thus, we conclude that RCC does not have standing to challenge a public defender’s good faith request to withdraw based on conflict.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed above, we quash in part and approve in part the decision of the Fourth District in this case.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result.

CANADY, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which POLSTON, J., concurs.

• CANADY, C.J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that section 27.5303(l)(a) governs all public defender motions to withdraw based on conflict — both at the trial and appellate levels — and that the court where the motion is filed is required to review such motions for sufficiency. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (RCC) did not have standing to object to a public defender’s motion to withdraw.

A would-be litigant has standing if “he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006); see also Gen. Dev. Corp. v. Kirk, 251 So.2d 284, 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971) (“Standing is, in the final analysis, that sufficient interest in the outcome of litigation which will warrant the court’s entertaining it.”). The would-be litigant bears the burden of setting forth “general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The issue of whether an entity such as RCC has standing in a particular action is not subject to a blanket rule but instead requires examination of the interest asserted by RCC in that case. See Hayes, 952 So.2d at 505 (“[Sjtanding to bring or participate in a particular legal proceeding often depends on the nature of the interest asserted.”); id. at 508 (rejecting “bright-line rule” adopted by district court that would preclude an heir from participating in a proceeding for guardian fees or attorney fees). Here, RCC alleged a sufficient interest in the resolution of the public defender’s motion to withdraw to have standing.

In State v. J.P., 907 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 2004), this Court identified three factors— based on decisions by the United States Supreme Court — to be considered regarding whether a litigant has standing to assert a cause of action. These factors also provide a helpful framework for analyzing a would-be intervener’s claim of standing.

There are three requirements that constitute the “irreducible constitutional minimum” for standing. Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 771, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000). First, a plaintiff must demonstrate an “injury in fact,” which is “concrete,” “distinct and palpable,” and “actual or imminent.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990). Second, a plaintiff must establish “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560,112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Third, a plaintiff must show “a ‘substantial likelihood’ that the requested relief will remedy the alleged injury in fact.” Stevens, 529 U.S. at 771, 120 S.Ct. 1858.

J.P., 907 So.2d at 1113 n. 4; see also Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) (“[Tjhe standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted. Is the injury too abstract, or otherwise not appropriate, to be considered judicially cognizable? Is the line of causation between the illegal conduct and injury too attenuated? Is the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling too speculative?”). As for the first J.P. factor — an injury in fact — the alleged harm must be “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’ ” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155, 110 S.Ct. 1717 (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)).

Section 27.511(5), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that RCC must assume representation of an indigent defendant in the event that the public defender cannot represent the defendant due to a conflict of interest:

(5) When the Office of the Public Defender, at any time during the representation of two or more defendants, determines that the interests of those accused are so adverse or hostile that they cannot all be counseled by the public defender or his or her staff without a conflict of interest, or that none can be counseled by the public defender or his or her staff because of a conflict of interest, and the court grants the public defender’s motion to withdraw, the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel shall be appointed and shall provide legal services, without additional compensation, to any person determined to be indigent under s. 27.52....

Because RCC must assume the representation of an indigent defendant upon withdrawal of the public defender, RCC is directly affected by the court’s ruling on a public defender’s motion to withdraw.

Further, because the withdrawal of a public defender results in additional responsibilities for RCC, the public defender’s withdrawal is an actual injury to RCC if the public defender does not have a legally sufficient basis for withdrawal. If a public defender withdraws unnecessarily, RCC will be forced to expend its finite resources to provide legal services beyond its mandate. In that situation, RCC incurs the burden of an additional client because the public defender has failed to fulfill its function as the provider of counsel in the absence of a conflict. Judicial review of the sufficiency of a public defender’s motion to withdraw will prevent this injury to RCC.

Based on the forgoing, where RCC asserts factual allegations that — if proven— would establish that the public defender does not have cause for withdrawal, RCC should be considered to have standing to oppose the motion to withdraw. RCC will suffer an injury in fact if the public defender is permitted to wrongfully withdraw representation, and that injury can be avoided by judicial review of the motion to withdraw.

Here, in the Fourth District Court of Appeal, the appellate public defender requested that its office be permitted to withdraw from representing defendant Christopher Johnson due to an alleged conflict of interest. The public defender asserted that there was a conflict because one attorney in the office was currently representing on appeal Johnson’s codefen-dant, James Mayfield. Contrary to the impression given by the opinion in the decision now on review, in opposition to the motion to withdraw, RCC did not merely complain that the public defender was attempting to use RCC as “a dumping zone” without addressing the merit of the motion to withdraw. Johnson v. State, 6 So.3d 1262, 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Instead, in its written objection to the public defender’s motion to withdraw, RCC asserted that because the trials for Johnson and Mayfield were complete and the record on appeal for each case is public information, attorneys within the public defender’s office could competently represent the codefendants on appeal without violating any client confidences. By raising a factual question regarding the public defender’s assertion of conflict, RCC alleged an “actual or imminent” concern that RCC would be forced to assume representation in a case that arguably could be handled by the public defender. Whit-more, 495 U.S. at 155, 110 S.Ct. 1717. Accordingly, the Fourth District and the majority of this Court should have concluded that RCC had standing to object to the public defender’s motion to withdraw.

The majority errs in relying on Escambia County v. Behr, 384 So.2d 147 (Fla.1980), to support the conclusion that RCC lacked standing to challenge the appellate public defender’s motion to withdraw. The facts of Behr make it easily distinguishable from the case on review. Behr arose from different procedural circumstances and interpreted a different statutory provision. Moreover, Behr contains no discussion of the legal principles governing standing.

In Behr, Escambia and Dade Counties filed petitions for writs of certiorari, asserting that section 27.53, Florida Statutes (1977), imposed a duty on the public defender to represent indigent defendants and permitted withdrawal only in the circumstance of a conflict of interest. On review, this Court explained that section 27.53(2) stated that in addition to the public defenders, “any member of the bar in good standing may be appointed by the court to ... represent insolvent defendants.” Behr, 384 So.2d at 148 n. 4. Based on this language, this Court concluded that section 27.53 granted trial courts discretion to appoint either private counsel or the public defender without making any “prerequisite findings” and that, as a result, the trial court did “not have to ... allow the county an opportunity to be heard before appointing private counsel.” Id. at 150.

In Behr, this Court determined that because section 27.53(2) granted the trial court broad discretion to appoint a private attorney rather than a public defender, the counties did not have a legal basis for challenging the motions to withdraw and there was no reason to conduct a hearing on the matter. In contrast, the statute at issue in the case on review — section 27.5303(l)(a) — does limit the trial court’s discretion to grant a public defender’s motion to withdraw to only those circumstances when the public defender has a conflict. RCC may not be legally assigned to represent a defendant absent such conflict. Accordingly, RCC — unlike the counties in Behr — has a legal basis for challenging a public defender’s motion to withdraw, and enforcement of the statute will prevent injury to RCC.

In addition, in Behr this Court did not directly mention the doctrine of standing. But the Court did state that it was adopting Judge Hubbart’s dissent from Dade County v. Baker, 362 So.2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), and in that dissent Judge Hubbart expressly concluded that Dade County had standing to bring a petition seeking review of an order granting a motion to withdraw filed by the appellate public defender. Behr, 384 So.2d at 150. Finally, in Behr, this Court discussed the counties’ arguments on review rather than dismissing the proceeding due to lack of standing. Thus, in Behr this Court concluded not that the counties lacked standing to object to a public defender’s motion to withdraw but that given the governing statutory provision, there was no reason to require a trial court to conduct a hearing on a public defender’s motion to withdraw.

Similarly, In re Order on Prosecution of Criminal Appeals by Tenth Judicial Circuit Public Defend,er, 561 So.2d 1130 (Fla.1990), does not contain any discussion of the principles governing standing. The Court concluded that in issuing the challenged order — which addressed the excessive case load of the appellate public defender — the “Second District Court properly invoked the inherent power of the judiciary.” Id. at 1138. The Court did not conclude that the counties lacked standing; rather, the Court rejected the counties’ argument that their “due process rights [were] violated” because they “were given neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued.” Id. at 1133. The Court reasoned that the challenged order “is merely the most recent in a series of efforts by the Second District Court to deal with th[e] increasing problem” of the public defender’s excessive case load. Id. The Court observed that “[i]n connection with at least two of these prior efforts by the Second District Court, all interested parties, including the counties, have been given an opportunity to respond,” and that “[t]he issues remain the same, and apparently the counties’ response also remains unchanged.” Id. (emphasis added). The Court thus recognized the counties’ status as interested parties but determined that given the history of the matter, the counties were not entitled to pri- or notice and a prior opportunity to be heard regarding the order issued by the district court.

The structural excessive case load issues addressed by In re Order on Prosecution are of an entirely different nature than the issue in the case on review. This Court’s conclusion about the requirements of due process in the context of those protracted proceedings provide no basis for any conclusion regarding the standing of RCC in the instant proceeding.

I also disagree with the majority’s decision on the standing issue because the majority does not recognize the consequences that follow from its conclusion that RCC did not have standing in the Fourth District. If RCC did not have standing in the Fourth District to oppose the motion to withdraw, how can the RCC now have standing to raise that issue in this Court? If the majority is correct on the standing issue, the unavoidable consequence would be the dismissal of this proceeding. A litigant lacking standing to raise an issue in a lower court also lacks standing to obtain appellate review and a ruling from the appellate court that the lower court erred on that issue.

In conclusion, I would quash the Fourth District’s decision. The Fourth District erred both in its interpretation of section 27.5303(l)(a) and in its ruling regarding RCC’s standing. RCC had a sufficient interest in the public defender’s motion to be heard on the subject, and pursuant to section 27.5303(l)(a), the Fourth District should have reviewed the sufficiency of the public defender’s motion to withdraw. I dissent from that portion of the majority’s decision that relates to RCC’s standing.

POLSTON, J., concurs.

      . Section 27.40(3), Florida Statutes (2008), provides for the maintenance of a registry of attorneys in private practice. Attorneys on the registry have certified that they meet the minimum requirements set forth in the laws for court appointment and are available to represent indigent defendants. Id. § 27.40(3)(a). The attorneys from the registry are appointed in rotating order. Id. § 27.40(3)(b).

      . See ch. 2003-402, § 19, Laws of Fla. The 2003 amendment also gave the Justice Administration Committee standing to object to the public defender’s motions to withdraw. This is pertinent to the standing issue.

      . We conclude that the instant case is not in express and direct conflict with the decision in Public Defender because the Third District did not rule on the merits of RCC's standing to intervene in that case. See Public Defender, 12 So.3d at 800 n. 2. However, to the extent that Public Defender may be read as implying that RCC would have been permitted to intervene had a timely motion been filed, we disapprove the decision because it is not consistent with our reasoning in this case.


text:
    Bobby Lee AKIEN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC10-1837.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Jan. 5, 2012.
    Carlos F. Gonzalez of Diaz Reus and Targ, LLP, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Celia Terenzio, Bureau Chief, and Laura Fisher, Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Akien v. State, 44 So.3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), based on express and direct conflict. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Upon further consideration, we have determined that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we hereby discharge jurisdiction and dismiss this review proceeding.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

LEWIS, J., dissents.