AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NEVA CATHERN BRUBAKER AND JULIE L. FARBER, 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.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company's appeal from a judgment for breach of duty to defend and bad faith refusal to settle is affirmed, except the court reverses the award of postjudgment interest on prejudgment interest as contrary to established doctrine.
An insurance carrier's duty to defend an insured is well-established, and postjudgment interest cannot be awarded on prejudgment interest.
[1] An award of prejudgment interest cannot itself bear postjudgment interest.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuto-Owners Insurance Company was obligated to defend Neva Brubaker and Julie L. Farber in an automobile accident claim. Auto-Owners allegedly breache…
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 Breach Of Duty To Defend cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Chief Judge.
This matter arises from an automobile accident and an underlying claim which Auto-Owners Insurance Company was obligated to defend. Auto-Owners raises several points in its appeal from a partial summary judgment and a multi-million dollar final judgment entered in favor of Neva Brubaker and Julie L. Farber. Brubaker and Farber claim that Auto-Owners.breached its duty to defend them and refused in bad faith to settle a claim asserted against them which terminated in a default judgment. The duty of an insurance carrier to defend an insured is adequately defined in our opinion in International Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Markham, 580 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), and requires no further comments in the present setting. Thus, we affirm the trial court in all respects, save one. Contrary to doctrine long followed in this district, the final judgment awards postjudgment interest on the amount found due as prejudgment interest. See Cooper v. Gibson Group, Ltd. of Pinellas County, Inc., 640 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); City of Tampa v. Janke Constr., Inc., 626 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (an award of prejudgment interest cannot itself bear interest).
Accordingly, we affirm but reverse the award of postjudgment interest and remand for the trial court’s reconsideration in the light of our opinion.
RYDER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Int'l Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Markham, 580 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Bird Lakes Dev. Corp. v. Homero Meruelo, 626 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Miller Cooper v. Gibson Grp., Ltd., 640 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)