WILLIAM ADAMS, ET UX., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, ETC., DEFENDANT-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.
The Florida Supreme Court declined to address whether punitive damages can be awarded in a first-party bad faith insurance claim, finding that its recent decision in McLeod v. Continental Insurance Co. rendered the certified question moot because damages in such claims are not measured by the excess judgment amount.
The Court declined to address the certified question because its recent McLeod decision established that the proper measure of damages in a first-party bad faith action under section 624.155 consists of natural, proximate, probable, or direct consequences of the insurer's bad faith actions, not the excess judgment amount.
[1] Damages recoverable in a first-party bad faith suit under Florida Statutes section 624.155 are those damages that are the natural, proximate, probable, or direct conseque…
[2] Damages in a first-party bad faith action under Florida Statutes section 624.155 may exceed the limits of the insurance policy.
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 damages recoverable in a first-party bad faith suit under section 624.155, Florida Statutes (1989), are those damages which are the natural, proximate, probable, or direct consequence of the insurer's bad faith actions and that such damages may exceed the limits of the insurance policy.”
Establishes the proper framework for calculating first-party bad faith damages, which does not include the excess judgment amount.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams involved a first-party bad faith claim against an uninsured motorist insurance carrier. The plaintiff had obtained an excess judgment against a …
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 First-Party Bad Faith Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
McDonald, justice.
Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(6), Florida Constitution, we respond to Adams v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 920 F. 2d 897, 900 (11th Cir.1991), in which the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question: Assuming that Fla.Stat. Section 624.-155(l)(b)l. provides for a first-party bad faith claim in an uninsured motorist case, and assuming that damages exceeding the limits of the insurance policy may be collected against an uninsured motorist insurance carrier, can the measure of damages properly include an award of punitive damages against the insurer?
In McLeod v. Continental Insurance Co., 591 So. 2d 621 (Fla.1992), we held that the damages recoverable in a first-party bad faith suit under section 624.155, Florida Statutes (1989), are those damages which are the natural, proximate, probable, or direct consequence of the insurer’s bad faith actions and that such damages may exceed the limits of the insurance policy. However, we rejected the contention that first-party bad faith damages should be fixed by the amount of the excess judgment.
In Adams, the issue is whether it is proper to award the excess judgment amount in a first-party action under section 624.155, even though the excess judgment consists of punitive damages secured by the insured against the third-party tortfeasor. Because we held that the excess judgment amount is not the proper measure of damages in a first-party action, McLeod is determinative of this case. Accordingly, we decline to address the certified question further. It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur. BARKETT, J., dissents with an opinion, in which KOGAN, J., concurs.
BARKETT, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons expressed in my opinion in McLeod v. Continental, 591 So. 2d 621 (Fla.1992) (Barkett, J., dissenting).
KOGAN, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunn v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 631 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ment obtained against an insured may satisfy the provable damages in most cases,4 it is not the sole measure of damages in bad faith cases. McLeod v. Continental Insurance Co., 591 So. 2d 621 (Fla.1992); Adams v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 591 So. 2d 929 (Fla.1992). Punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other direct consequential damages may be recoverable in appropriate cases. If the rule were otherwise, it would permit an insurance company to flagrantly disregard its insured’s interests, and when…
-
Adams v. The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 955 F.2d 39 (11th Cir. 1992)…ected against an uninsured motorist carrier, can the measure of damages properly include an award of punitive damages against the insurer? Id. at 900. The Florida Supreme Court recently responded to this question in Adams v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 591 So. 2d 929 (Fla.1992). The Florida Supreme Court referred to its recent decision in McLeod v. Continental Insurance Co., 591 So. 2d 621 (Fla.1992), as determinative of this case. In McLeod, the court held that the proper measure of damages in first-party actio…
Authorities Cited
- McLEOD v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 591 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1992)
- Adams v. The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 920 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1991)