FREEDOM OFFICES CORP., AND MARIA BEHAR
v.
ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
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.
Freedom Offices Corp. and Maria Behar appealed a summary judgment in favor of Rockhill Insurance Company in a Coblentz agreement case. The appellants sought recovery under a negotiated consent judgment, but the trial court found that Rockhill had no duty to defend under the insurance policy terms because the claims fell within policy exclusions, making the insurer's denial of coverage and refusal to defend non-wrongful.
Rockhill Insurance Company had no duty to defend because the policy terms do not provide coverage for the occurrence alleged, and the claims fall plainly within two policy exclusions. Because there was no duty to defend, the insurer's decision not to defend was not wrongful, and there was likewise no duty to indemnify.
[1] To recover under a Coblentz agreement, the injured party must prove coverage, wrongful refusal to defend, and that the settlement was reasonable and made in good faith.
[2] An insurer has no duty to defend when the allegations of the operative complaint fall within policy exclusions.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 policy must be enforced as written. Courts are without power to rewrite insurance contracts or create insurance coverage where none exists.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that insurance policies must be interpreted according to their plain terms and courts cannot expand coverage beyond what is written.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants sought to recover under a Coblentz agreement against Rockhill Insurance Company. The operative complaint allegations fell within two ex…
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 Coblentz Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed March 26, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1339 Lower Tribunal No. 19-8418-CA-01 ________________
Freedom Offices Corp., and Maria Behar, Appellants,
vs.
Rockhill Insurance Company, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.
Law Offices of Victor K. Rones, P.A., and Victor K. Rones, for appellants.
Lapin & Leichtling, LLP, and Jonathan R. Rosenn and Jeffrey S. Lapin, for appellee, Rockhill Insurance Company.
Before FERNANDEZ, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
This case arises from a Coblentz agreement—a negotiated consent judgment between the injured party and the defendant where the defendant’s insurance company denied coverage and declined to defend the lawsuit. Coblentz v. Am. Sur. Co. of New York, 416 F. 2d 1059, 1062 (5th Cir. 1969); Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Royal Crane, LLC, 169 So. 3d 174, 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). To recover under the agreement, “the injured party must bring an action against the insurer and prove coverage, wrongful refusal to defend, and that the settlement was reasonable and made in good faith.” Quintana v. Barad, 528 So. 2d 1300, 1301 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Yet the Appellants Freedom Offices Corp. and Maria Behar failed to carry this burden.
The trial court correctly found that Rockhill Insurance Company had no duty to defend as the terms of the policy do not provide coverage for this occurrence. The allegations of the operative complaint plainly fall within two exclusions. See generally Fojon v. Ascendant Com. Ins. Co., 393 So. 3d 806, 810–11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“The policy must be enforced as written. Courts are without power to rewrite insurance contracts or create insurance coverage where none exists.”). Because Rockhill Insurance Company had no duty to defend, its decision not to provide a defense was not wrongful. It likewise had no duty to indemnify. See WellCare of Fla., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.,
3 16 So. 3d 904, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“[T]he duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend and thus cannot exist if there is no duty to defend.”); Fed. Ins. Co. v. Applestein, 377 So. 2d 229, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (“It has thus been uniformly held that a determination that there is no duty to defend against a particular claim carries with it the inevitable conclusion that there is none to pay an eventual judgment which may be entered upon that claim.”). Appropriately, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Rockhill Insurance Company. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coblentz v. Am. Sur. Co. OF NEW York, 416 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Fed. Ins. Co. v. Allan H. Applestein & the Allan H. Applestein Found. Tr. & Robert Mackin, 377 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Royal Crane, LLC, 169 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Quintana v. The Honorable Frederick N. Barad, 528 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Wellcare OF Fla., Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 16 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Fojon v. Ascendant Commercial Ins. Co., 393 So. 3d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)