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

April 24, 2015 by admin

Insurance – Bad Faith – Premature Bad Faith Claim Should be Dismissed Without Prejudice

25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D116a

Insurance — Bad faith — Statutory bad faith claim is premature where liability and damages have not yet been determined — Premature bad faith claim should be dismissed without prejudice, rather than abated — Motion for extension of time to file case management report denied as moot

HOLLI R. THORNE, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Case No. 8:14-CV-827-T-17AEP. February 25, 2015. Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, Judge.

ORDER

 
This cause is before the Court on: Dkt. 3-7 Motion to Dismiss Dkt. 3-8 Response in OppositionDkt. 12 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Case Management Report

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company removed the Statutory Bad Faith Claim, Count III of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint on April 8, 2014. The Court has denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. The Court has outlined the posture of this case in that Order, and incorporates it by reference.

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company moves to dismiss or to strike Count III of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. Defendant State Farm argues that the statutory bad faith claim does not exist, and may never come into existence. Defendant State Farm argues that dismissal, rather than abatement, is the proper remedy. Shuck v. Bank of America. N.A., 862 So.2d 20, 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D2191d] (where the premature element of an action is curable by the passage of time, abatement until the cause matures is appropriate; where one of the essential elements is contingent on an event that may or may not occur, dismissal is required).

Plaintiff Thorne responds that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion and exercise its authority to abate only the portion of Plaintiff’s bad faith claim regarding the issue of Defendant’s bad faith claims handling. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Motion has caused the waste of resources, and the inevitable consequence of inconsistent verdicts.

The Court notes that in the underlying case in Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Case No. 08-CA-007591, the Parties will proceed to trial on liability and damages as to Count I and II of the Third Amended Complaint.

The Court recognizes that there are conflicting opinions as to removal of a bad faith claim, as outlined in Defendant’s Motion, and as to whether a premature bad faith claim should be dismissed or abated. Plaintiff’s concern with inconsistent verdicts is unfounded. There are conflicting opinions as to whether a jury verdict in the underlying case is binding in determining total damages that may be awarded to a plaintiff who prevails in a bad faith claim. The Court has found that a jury verdict in the underlying case is binding.

The Court notes that a bad faith claim is entirely a creature of statute. “Florida does not recognize a common law first-party action for bad faith failure to settle a claim under an insurance contract.” Bollinger v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., supra (citing Chalfonte Condo. Apartment Assn. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 561 F.3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 2009) [23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D159a]; Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly S172a]). The statutory notice to the insurer and the Department of Financial Services is a condition precedent to a bad faith claim, after which the insurer has sixty days to cure the violation of the statute. In Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So.2d 1270, 1275 (Fla. 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly S177a], the Florida Supreme Court states: “We continue to hold in accord with Blanchard that bringing a cause of action in court for violation of section 825.155(1)(b)(1) is premature until there is a determination of liability and the extent of damages owed on the first-party insurance contract . This avoids the problem Blanchard dealt with, which was the splitting of causes of action. However, a claim brought prematurely is not subject to a summary judgment. Such a claim should be dismissed as premature.”

Because liability and damages have not yet been determined, Plaintiff’s bad faith claim is premature. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This case will be dismissed without prejudice as premature. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Case Management Report (Dkt. 12) is denied as moot. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or to Strike is granted as to dismissal and denied as to striking Count III. Count Ill is dismissed without prejudice as premature. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

* * *

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