Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, 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 Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

January 13, 2022 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Bad faith — Whether insurer acted in good faith toward insured in resolving claim was issue of fact for jury given different inferences that could be drawn from facts at hand — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer

47 Fla. L. Weekly D107e

WENDY FIRTELL and BRIAN FIRTELL, Appellants, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D20-1878. January 5, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18-017831 CACE (09). Counsel: Robert C. Hubbard and George A. Vaka of Vaka Law Group, P.L., Tampa, and Max M. Messinger of Kanner & Pintaluga, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellants. Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Miami, and Kevin D. Franz of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

(PER CURIAM.) Wendy and Brian Firtell’s home was insured under a policy issued by USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA”). The Firtells made a claim, and USAA inspected and made some payments over a period of months, but it did not pay the full amount of loss claimed by the Firtells. Following the appraisal process and USAA’s payment of the appraisal award, the Firtells asserted a bad faith claim against USAA, and the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of USAA. The Firtells appeal, and we reverse.

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings and summary judgment evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c).1 “If the affidavits and other evidence raise any doubt as to any issue of material fact then a summary judgment may not be entered.” E. Qualcom Corp. v. Glob. Com. Ctr. Ass’n, 59 So. 3d 347, 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted). “Even if ‘the facts are uncontroverted, the entry of summary judgment is likewise erroneous if different inferences can be drawn reasonably from those facts.’ ” Gross v. Home Expanded Corp., 77 So. 3d 835, 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644, 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)).

Typically, the question of whether an insurer acted in good faith toward its insured in resolving a claim is an issue of fact for the jury. See Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Weiner, 869 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Given the different inferences that each party argues must be drawn from the facts at hand, this case is no exception.

Reversed and remanded. (CIKLIN, J., and HARPER, BRADLEY, Associate Judge, concur. ARTAU, J., dissents with opinion.)

__________________

(ARTAU, J., dissenting.) I respectfully dissent. While the issue of bad faith is generally one of fact for a jury, the issue of bad faith may be determined as a matter of law when the facts are undisputed. See, e.g., Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665, 680 (Fla. 2004) (“Although the issue of bad faith is ordinarily a question for the jury, this Court and the district courts have, in certain circumstances, concluded as a matter of law that an insurance company could not be liable for bad faith.”); Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1980) (The trial court erred in not granting the motion for directed verdict where “[t]here is no sufficient evidence from which any reasonable jury could have concluded that there was bad faith on the part of the insurer.”); RLI Ins. Co. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 691 So. 2d 1095, 1096-97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (affirming summary judgment for the insurer because the depositions and documents “show[ed] beyond any doubt that the primary insurer at no time missed an opportunity to settle which would have put it in a bad faith posture”); Clauss v. Fortune Ins. Co., 523 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (insurer was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because “there were insufficient allegations of unreasonable and bad faith conduct” where the insurer “expressed its willingness to tender the policy limits, but desired verification”); Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 453 So. 2d 1187, 1190-91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (affirming summary judgment in the insurer’s favor where the undisputed evidence in the affidavits showed that the insurer “exercised reasonable diligence in investigating” the claim against its insured and no evidence showed that the insured engaged in any “kind of conduct which has typified those cases in which the courts have found the existence of bad faith”); see also Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1282 (Fla. 2000) (a statutory bad faith claim pursuant to “[s]ection 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands”).

The undisputed evidence shows that the insurer complied with the policy terms, reasonably investigated the claim, promptly participated in the appraisal process, and timely paid the appraisal award which was less than the amount its insured had claimed. Under these circumstances — with no genuine disputed issues of fact — the trial court correctly concluded that no reasonable jury could find the insurer had engaged in bad faith. Therefore, I would affirm the summary judgment entered in favor of the insurer.

__________________

1Rule 1.510 was amended on May 1, 2021, but the amendment “does not apply here as the final judgment predates the amendment.” See Lorber v. Passick, 4D20-393, 2021 WL 3891004, at *3 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 1, 2021). We provide no opinion on the outcome of this case under the amended rule.* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — All-risk policy — Coverage — Cracking damage to home caused by blasting vibrations from nearby rock quarry — Exclusions — Earth or soil movement — Wear and tear, marking, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion — Concurrent causes — Trial court did not err in denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict based on policy’s exclusion of coverage for earth sinking, rising, or shifting or soil movement resulting from blasting — Insurer’s position was based upon mischaracterization of testimony by insureds’ expert, who was steadfast in his opinion that none of the damage to home resulted from soil or earth movement, but was instead the result of shock waves from blasting that caused the house to shake — Based upon competing expert testimony, jury could have reasonably concluded that it was shock waves, not soil or earth movement, that caused damage — Jury instructions — Covered and excluded perils — Concurrent cause doctrine — Trial court did not err by instructing jury that land shock waves from blasting in combination with wear and tear, marring, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion was not excluded under policy — Although policy’s earth movement exclusion contained an explicit anti-concurrent cause provision, this provision would have come into play only if jury had first determined that one of the causes of damage was earth movement — Judgment in favor of insureds affirmed
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Work product — Claims files — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by compelling insurer to produce documents from its claims and underwriting files — Documents in claims and underwriting files are not automatically work product — Insurer’s assertion of work-product privilege was overly broad, and insurer did not argue or prove that the requested documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation
  • Wrongful death — Medical malpractice — Vicarious liability — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Allegation that defendant, through its president, committed acts of intentional misconduct or gross negligence by assigning a nurse practitioner to provide after-hours care to a patient with highly complex problems that were beyond nurse practitioner’s permissible scope of practice — Trial court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to assert claim for punitive damages — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on intentional conduct where evidence was insufficient to show that defendant’s president either knew or otherwise intended for nurse practitioner to independently order medical treatment for patient outside the scope of nurse practitioner’s practice without consulting president — Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that defendant’s president condoned or ratified nurse practitioner’s independent treatment with actual knowledge of a high probability that doing so would result in additional harm or death to patient — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on gross negligence where facts of case did not show that defendant, through its president or nurse practitioner, evinced a reckless or conscious disregard of or indifference to human life
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant

Blog Archives

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 © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982