Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

February 17, 2017 by admin

Insurance — Automobile liability — Coverage — Trial court erred in determining that there was coverage by operation of estoppel where insured failed to prove prejudice

 

42
Fla. L. Weekly D351c
Top of Form

Insurance
— Automobile liability — Coverage — Trial court erred in determining that
there was coverage by operation of estoppel where insured failed to prove
prejudice

PROGRESSIVE
EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. ANZUALDA BROTHERS,
INC., a Florida Corporation, JESUS E. MARINO CASTILLO, individually and as an
employee of Anzualda Brothers, Appellees/Cross-Appellees. 1st District. Case
No. 1D15-4700. Opinion filed February 10, 2017. An appeal from the Circuit
Court for Levy County. Stanley H. Griffis, III, Judge. Counsel: Scott A. Cole,
Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami; Joseph T. Kissane, Steven L. Worley,
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Lincoln J. Connolly, Trials & Appeals, P.A., Miami, for
Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Anzualda Brothers, Inc.

(WOLF,
J.) Appellant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, challenges the trial
court’s entry of a declaratory judgment determining that there was insurance
coverage in favor of appellee Anzualda Brothers, Inc. by operation of estoppel.
Appellant argues it should not have to provide coverage for appellee’s
accident, which resulted in the fatality of one victim and the injury of
another victim, because the vehicle appellee had been driving was not a listed
vehicle on the insurance policy, and because appellee failed to prove all three
elements of its coverage by estoppel claim.

Appellee
cross-appeals, alleging the trial court erred in its refusal to enforce a
settlement agreement and consent judgment that were agreed to by appellant and
entered in the separate, underlying tort case between appellee and the victims.

We
agree with appellant that appellee failed to prove all three elements of its
coverage by estoppel claim. In an insurance coverage by estoppel claim, the
plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant company made a representation of
material fact; (2) the plaintiff reasonably relied on that representation of
material fact; and (3) the plaintiff was prejudiced by its reliance. Bishop
v. Progressive Express Ins. Co.
, 154 So. 3d 467, 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
Because appellee failed to sufficiently prove prejudice, we reverse, vacate the
trial court’s final judgment in favor of appellee, and remand for the trial
court to enter final judgment in favor of appellant.

Because
we remand for the trial court to enter final judgment in favor of appellant,
appellee’s cross-appeal requesting damages from appellant in the amount
outlined in the settlement agreement is moot. (MAKAR and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.)

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982