DEBRA EMANUEL, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Debra Emanuel appealed a summary judgment dismissing her insurance claim against USF&G after an uninsured motorist accident. The court held that while Emanuel could establish promissory estoppel based on detrimental reliance regarding payments USF&G made during claim processing, she could not do so regarding the final settlement agreement, resulting in a partial reversal.
The court held that promissory estoppel applies to the interim payments made by USF&G for automobile expenses, lost wages, and medical expenses because USF&G's assurances and payment conduct induced Emanuel's detrimental reliance. However, promissory estoppel does not apply to the final settlement agreement.
[1] Promissory estoppel may be utilized to create insurance coverage where refusal to do so would sanction fraud or other injustice.
[2] Detrimental reliance sufficient for promissory estoppel may be found where a promisor's affirmative representations reasonably induce the promisee into action or forbeara…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“promissory estoppel may be utilized to create insurance coverage where to refuse to do so would sanction fraud or other injustice”
Establishes the legal standard for when promissory estoppel applies in insurance cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEmanuel was involved in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist and filed a claim with her insurer, USF&G. Over approximately one year, USF&…
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 Estoppel To Deny Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Debra Emanuel (Emanuel), appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF & G). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Emanuel was involved in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist and filed a claim with her insurer, USF & G. Over the course of about one year, USF & G made payments to Emanuel for automobile repairs, lost wages, and medical expenses. Thereafter, the parties entered into a final settlement agreement in the amount of $7,000. Prior to paying the agreed settlement, USF & G discovered that Emanuel had not made the last quarterly payment on her policy. USF & G claimed, therefore, that the policy was not in effect at the time of the accident.
Emanuel asserts that USF & G is es-topped from denying coverage because she relied on USF & G’s conduct and statements, to her detriment. Emanuel claims she detrimentally relied on USF & G's representations by not obtaining another insurance policy prior to the accident, and by incurring other expenses after the accident she thought were covered by her insurance policy.
USF & G contends that Emanuel was not covered at the time of the accident. USF & G also contends that Emanuel did not establish detrimental reliance, the narrow exception to the general rule that promissory estoppel cannot be used to create or extend coverage.
It is well established in Florida that promissory estoppel may be utilized to create insurance coverage where to refuse to do so would sanction fraud or other injustice. Crown Life Insurance Company v. McBride, 517 So. 2d 660 (Fla.1987). Such injustice may be found where the promisor reasonably should have expected that his affirmative representations would induce the promisee into action or forbearance, and where the promisee shows that such reliance was to his detriment. Mount Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Jordan, 290 So. 2d 484 (Fla.1974).
We find that USF & G’s statements assuring Emanuel that she was covered prior to the accident, and USF & G’s conduct in making payments to Emanuel after the accident, induced Emanuel to rely to her detriment. We do not find detrimental reliance with respect to the settlement agreement. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment that relates to the payments made for automobile expenses, lost wages and medical expenses, and affirm the portion of the judgment that relates to the settlement agreement.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Ganesh Shivbaran, 827 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…misor reasonably should have expected that his affirmative representations would induce the promisee into action or forbearance, and where the promisee shows that such reliance was to his detriment.” Emanuel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 583 So. 2d 1092, 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The insured could not reasonably rely on the insurer’s cancellation date of September 29 when he had twice been placed on notice that his policy would be cancelled earlier by the premium finance company for nonpayment of a…
-
Morse, LLC v. United Wis. Life Ins., 356 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (S.D. Fla. 2005)…e expected that his affirmative representations would induce the promisee into action or forbearance, and where the promisee shows that such reliance was to his detriment.’ ” Id. (quoting Emanuel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 583 So.2d 1092, 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)). In Count VI, Cyberknife sufficiently alleges the elements necessary for promissory estoppel. However, in filing an amended complaint, Cyberknife is to delete its inclusion of the allegations concerning the parties’ exp…
-
ConSeal Int'l Inc. v. Neogen Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2020)…induce the promisee into action or forbearance, and where the promisee shows that such reliance was to his detriment.” [U.S. Security Ins. Co. v. Shivbaran, 827 So. 2d 1090, 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (quoting Emanuel v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 583 So. 2d 1092, 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991))]. Morse, LLC, 356 F. Supp. 2d at 1300. “The doctrine of promissory estoppel ‘is unavailable when there is a written contract between the parties covering the disputed promises.’” Hartel v. Unity Recovery Ctr., Inc., No. 16…
Authorities Cited
- Crown Life Ins. Co. v. McBRIDE, 517 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1987)
- Mount Sinai Hosp. OF Greater Miami, Inc. v. Jordan, 290 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1974)