INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLANT,
v.
PURITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (primary insurer) appealed the trial court's award requiring it to pay all post-verdict interest and appellate bond costs rather than sharing these costs pro rata with Puritan Insurance Company (excess insurer). The court affirmed, holding that the primary insurer's explicit contractual obligation to pay all interest on judgments preempts the excess insurer's conditional obligation.
The primary insurer bears the full obligation for post-verdict interest and appellate bond costs because its insurance contract expressly promised to pay all interest on judgments, while the excess insurer's obligation was limited to amounts not covered by underlying insurance. The primary insurer's contractual obligation is preemptive over the excess insurer's conditional obligation.
[1] A primary insurer's contractual obligation to pay post-judgment interest on the entire amount of a judgment is preemptive over an excess insurer's obligation.
[2] A primary insurer's policy expressly promising to pay all interest expenses on a judgment is controlling over an excess insurer's policy limited to cases where no underly…
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“the liability of the insurer under the standard interest clause extends to interest on the entire amount of the judgment where there is no excess carrier”
Establishes the foundational Florida law that insurers are liable for all interest on judgments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn insured recovered a judgment of $880,000 plus costs. The primary insurer (Penn) paid $500,000 in principal and $104,054.74 in interest, while the e…
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 Primary Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
A primary insurer appeals an award of post-verdict interest and appellate bond costs to an excess insurer. We affirm.
A jury awarded an insured $880,000 with a cost judgment of $16,246.08. After the judgments were affirmed by this court, the primary carrier, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (Penn) paid $500,000 toward the principal of the total award and $104,054.74 in interest. The excess carrier, Puritan Insurance Company (Puritan) paid $380,000 in principal and $79,081.64 in interest. Each insurer posted a supersedeas bond for its portion of liability. Penn then filed a cross-claim for declaratory judgment as to the amount each insurer was obligated to pay. Puritan, by cross-claim, requested that the court find Penn responsible for the full amount of interest Puritan had advanced. The trial court held in Puritan’s favor. Florida law provides that the liability of the insurer under the standard interest clause extends to interest on the entire amount of the judgment where there is no excess carrier. Highway Cas. Co. v. Johnston, 104 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1958); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Warren, 125 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 131 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1961); Perez v. Otero, 415 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Penn argues that because both the primary and excess insurers were responsible for funds due the insured, the companies should share on a pro rata basis the interest costs incurred. Had both carriers assumed identical obligations, that solution may have been considered. In the case sub judice, however, the insurers’ contracts were not duplicate.
Penn’s contract of primary insurance coverage states:
[t]he company will pay, in addition to the applicable limit of liability ... all interest on the entire amount of any judgment therein which accrues after entry of the judgment and before the Company has paid or tendered or deposited in court that part of the judgment which does not exceed the limit of the company’s liability thereon [and] premiums on appeal bonds required in any suit....
Puritan’s excess policy provides:
As respects occurrences covered under this policy, but not covered under the underlying insurance or under any other collectible insurance, the company shall ... pay all premiums on appeal bonds ... and all interest accruing after the entry of judgment.
Primary carrier Penn expressly promised to pay all interest expenses. Excess carrier Puritan’s promise was limited to those-cases in which no underlying insurer had assumed the obligation. The obligation of a primary insurer is contractual in nature and is here preemptive over the secondary excess carrier’s obligation. See Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Palm Beach County, 157 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), cert. denied, 165 So. 2d 176 (Fla.1964).
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Calder Race Course, Inc. v. Ill. Union Ins., 714 F. Supp. 1183 (S.D. Fla. 1989)…on argues that this general rule does not apply when an excess carrier assumes the same obligation. The Florida district court of appeals considered a similar argument in Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Puritan Insurance Co., 532 So.2d 35, 36 (Fla.DistCtApp.1988). The Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (“Penn”) argued that because both primary and excess carriers were responsible for funds due to the insured, the companies should share on a pro rata basis the interest incurred. The co…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Warren, 125 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 157 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Porter D. Monroe v. State, 104 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1957)
- Perez v. Otero, 415 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Powers v. State, 131 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1961)
- Parada Holding Co. v. Sulkin, 131 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1961)
- Al Galiman Pontiac Inc. v. Bell, 165 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1964)
- Alve, Inc. v. Saunders, 165 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1964)