50 Fla. L. Weekly D702a
FREEDOM OFFICES CORP., and MARIA BEHAR, Appellants, v. ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-1339. L.T. Case No. 19-8418-CA-01. March 26, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge. Counsel: Law Offices of Victor K. Rones, P.A., and Victor K. Rones, for appellants. Lapin & Leichtling, LLP, and Jonathan R. Rosenn and Jeffrey S. Lapin, for appellee, Rockhill Insurance Company.
(Before FERNANDEZ, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.)
(PER CURIAM.) This case arises from a Coblentz agreement — a negotiated consent judgment between the injured party and the defendant where the defendant’s insurance company denied coverage and declined to defend the lawsuit. Coblentz v. Am. Sur. Co. of New York, 416 F.2d 1059, 1062 (5th Cir. 1969); Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Royal Crane, LLC, 169 So. 3d 174, 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). To recover under the agreement, “the injured party must bring an action against the insurer and prove coverage, wrongful refusal to defend, and that the settlement was reasonable and made in good faith.” Quintana v. Barad, 528 So. 2d 1300, 1301 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Yet the Appellants Freedom Offices Corp. and Maria Behar failed to carry this burden. The trial court correctly found that Rockhill Insurance Company had no duty to defend as the terms of the policy do not provide coverage for this occurrence. The allegations of the operative complaint plainly fall within two exclusions. See generally Fojon v. Ascendant Com. Ins. Co., 393 So. 3d 806, 810-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“The policy must be enforced as written. Courts are without power to rewrite insurance contracts or create insurance coverage where none exists.”).
Because Rockhill Insurance Company had no duty to defend, its decision not to provide a defense was not wrongful. It likewise had no duty to indemnify. See WellCare of Fla., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 16 So. 3d 904, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“[T]he duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend and thus cannot exist if there is no duty to defend.”); Fed. Ins. Co. v. Applestein, 377 So. 2d 229, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (“It has thus been uniformly held that a determination that there is no duty to defend against a particular claim carries with it the inevitable conclusion that there is none to pay an eventual judgment which may be entered upon that claim.”). Appropriately, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Rockhill Insurance Company.
Affirmed.
* * *