AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
MILLER, MILLER & MAC-FLORIDA, INC., ET. AL, RESPONDENTS
AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
MILLER, MILLER & MAC-FLORIDA, INC., ET. AL, RESPONDENTS
830 So. 2d 878
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
HARRIS, J.
Although we question whether the count for common law bad faith for failure to defend can survive in this first party action against the insurer, the insurer has not shown irreparable harm and the writ of certiorari is therefore denied. Certainly any appropriate discovery which might be addressed to the common law count would be available in any event under the existing statutory bad faith count. Whether the insured’s settlement of the underlying claim in this case provides the necessary “determination of liability” should await the trial of this matter. WRIT DENIED.
ORFINGER, R.B., J., concurs.
PLEUS, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petro Lucar Small v. State, 975 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…there is a reasonable possibility that the non-offending par [*1228] ty’s trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different absent the discovery violation. A.L.H. v. State, 915 So. 2d 242, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Greehan v. State, 830 So. 2d 878, 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). In this case, defense counsel stated that he would have filed a motion to suppress if he knew that this was not going to be a constructive possession case. The best way to remedy the prejudice caused by this violation would…