PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
ESTHER GERBER, RESPONDENT
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.
Prudential sought to stay an independent action by Gerber alleging violations of Florida insurance and elder exploitation statutes in obtaining a release from bodily injury claims, pending resolution of the underlying negligence action. The court denied the stay, holding that the independent tort claim for improper conduct in obtaining the release is separate from and does not depend on the outcome of the negligence action.
The court denied the stay, holding that the independent tort claim for improper conduct in obtaining the release is viable and independent from the negligence action, and does not depend on the outcome of that action. The alleged wrongful conduct in obtaining the release itself constitutes an independent actionable wrong, distinct from a bad faith claim arising from refusal to settle.
[1] A claim alleging tortious conduct in obtaining a release is independent of a negligence action arising from the underlying accident, even if the release is raised as a de…
[2] A tort claim for improper conduct in obtaining a release is not contingent on a prior determination of liability in a separate negligence action.
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“But while this complaint alleges bad faith, it is not a bad faith claim in the sense that Blanchard was considering. Here, it is the alleged conduct in obtaining the release which is the wrong being addressed, not wrongfully refusing to settle a previous action.”
Distinguishes the tort claim for improper conduct in obtaining the release from a traditional bad faith insurance claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA vehicle driven by Keefe collided with a mobile home owned by Gerber. Prudential insured Keefe and obtained a $1,000 release from Gerber for 'all bod…
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 Exploitation Of The Elderly cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
A vehicle driven by Keefe collided with a mobile home owned by Gerber. Prudential insured Keefe. Prudential obtained a release from Gerber for “all bodily injury resulting from the accident” for $1,000. Gerber thereafter sued Keefe for negligence and he raised as a defense the release previously given by Gerber. During the pendency of this action, Gerber sued Prudential claiming that Prudential violated section 626.9521, Florida Statutes, in obtaining the release and violated section 825.102, Florida Statutes, by exploiting the elderly. Gerber moved for discovery of Prudential’s files relating to the accident as well as certain internal files. Prudential claimed these files to be privileged but the court ordered disclosure. Prudential moved to stay the independent action against it until the negligence action against Keefe is resolved so that the validity of the release will have first been determined. The trial court refused and Prudential seeks certiorari review.
Prudential claims that the independent action against it is in the nature of a bad faith action which, in effect, alleges that the release is a product of fraud and overreaching. It urges that this issue should be raised in the Keefe action and cites the supreme court’s decision in Blanchard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla.1991), that bad faith claims do not accrue until the liability claim is decided. This is because, the court reasons, that if there is no liability, there could have been no bad faith in refusing to settle.
But while this complaint alleges bad faith, it is not a bad faith claim in the sense that Blanchard was considering. Here, it is the alleged conduct in obtaining the release which is the wrong being addressed, not wrongfully refusing to settle a previous action. Suppose Prudential’s agents held a gun to the injured’s head to obtain the release. Would this conduct be excusable if it later turned out that no release was necessary? While we agree that a determination of whether the release was obtained improperly is important in the Keefe action, it is not essential. It is possible that Keefe might win on the merits without the 'release. But even if Keefe proves no liability in the negligence action, still the alleged tortious conduct in obtaining the release remains viable and, we believe, independent.
Certiorari denied.
W. SHARP, and PETERSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulfstream Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Coley, 225 So. 3d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…issing appeal from partial final judgment on declaratory count where breach of contract and bad faith claims against insurer remained pending). The Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Gerber, 773 So. 2d 571, 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), is instructive. In Gerber, the insurer for the tortfeasor in an automobile accident obtained a release from the automobile accident victim for “all bodily injury resulting from the accident.” Following the release, the auto…
Authorities Cited
- Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1991)