MYRTA E. HESSLEY AND PHYLLIS J. HAMMEL AS EXECUTRICES OF THE ESTATE OF BENJAMIN C. HAMILTON, DECEASED, ROBERT TERRY HAMILTON AND MYRTA E. HESSLEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF HELEN MARTIN HAMILTON, DECEASED, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Heirs and executrices of two estates appealed an adverse jury verdict in an insurance coverage and bad faith settlement action against Travelers Indemnity Company. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that plaintiffs' novel theory combining insurance estoppel with a bad faith refusal to settle claim had no basis in Florida law.
No error was committed. The trial court properly denied plaintiffs' motions for directed verdict because plaintiffs' theory combining insurance estoppel with bad faith refusal to settle has no basis in Florida law. The court also found no error in the trial court's discovery and evidentiary rulings.
[1] A claim that an insurer was negligent in failing to deny coverage at the outset of a case and in proceeding to defend the claim, while simultaneously claiming the insurer…
[2] A trial court does not err in denying motions for a directed verdict when the presented claims lack a legal basis.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is said that the failure to deny coverage prejudiced the putative insured by "blowing" a settlement opportunity - thereby creating insurance estoppel [...] It is then claimed, quite inconsistently, that Travelers refused in "bad faith" to settle this claim within the limits of the policy on which, plaintiffs assert, Travelers should have denied coverage at the outset”
The court's explanation of plaintiffs' legal theory and its rejection as having no basis in Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs claimed that Travelers Indemnity Company negligently failed to deny insurance coverage at the outset of a case and continued defending a cl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discovery Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs herein appeal a final judgment entered on an adverse jury verdict in their insurance by estoppel, bad faith refusal to settle action below. We affirm.
First, no error was committed in denying the plaintiffs’ motions for directed verdict below. The claim here was that the defendant Travelers Indemnity Company was negligent in not denying insurance coverage at the outset of this case and in proceeding to defend the subject claim when there was no coverage, and that had Travelers denied coverage at the outset, the plaintiffs would have settled this case with the putative insured within the limits of the primary insurance carrier’s [GEICO] policy. It is said that the failure to deny coverage prejudiced the putative insured by “blowing” a settlement opportunity — thereby creating insurance estoppel. Cigarette Racing Team, Inc. v. Parliament Insurance Co., 395 So. 2d 1238, 1239-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). It is then claimed, quite inconsistently, that Travelers refused in “bad faith” to settle this claim within the limits of the policy on which, plaintiffs assert, Travelers should have denied coverage at the outset. Although very creative, this claim has no basis in Florida law and the trial court, to say the least, committed no error in denying plaintiffs’ motions for a directed verdict at trial. See Tiny’s Liquors, Inc. v. Davis, 353 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Second, no error has been shown in the trial court’s discovery and related evidentiary rulings at trial. See Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 381 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1980); Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1949); Rosaler v. Rosaler, 442 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 451 So. 2d 850 (Fla.1984); Reliable Services, Inc. v. Taft, 247 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
In view of our affirmance on the main appeal, the points raised on the cross appeal become moot. The final judgment appealed from is in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Elliott Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 381 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1980)
- Tiny's Liquors, Inc. v. Davis, 353 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1949)
- Cigarette Racing Team, Inc. v. Parliament Ins. Co., 395 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Morrison v. State, 247 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Rosaler v. Rosaler, 442 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)