Non-Waiver Agreement

38 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc.
  763 F.2d 1237· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 141×
  An insurer can defend a lawsuit while reserving its rights to deny coverage, and the insured cannot recover defense costs if they refuse such a defense.
• Tiedtke v. Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York
  222 So. 2d 206· Fla.· 1969-04-23 ·cited 118×
  Tiedtke and Thomas sought indemnity from their liability insurer Fidelity & Casualty after the insurer refused to pay a judgment, claiming the insureds breached the policy's notice requirement by failing to notify the insurer of an accident for three months. The Florida Supreme C
• Palatine Ins. Co. v. Whitfield
  73 Fla. 716· Fla.· 1917-03-24 ·cited 71×
  Palatine Insurance Company challenged a jury verdict awarding Whitfield damages for a loss on an insured building. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the insurer waived its forfeiture clause by investigating and offering settlement after learning of the breach, and
• Queen Ins. Co. v. Patterson Drug Co.
  73 Fla. 665· Fla.· 1917-03-20 ·cited 55×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for an insurance policyholder against Queen Insurance Company, holding that an insurance agent's knowledge of prohibited conditions (gasoline storage and use) and the adjuster's investigation without protest constituted a waiver o
• Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rice
  393 So. 2d 552· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-10-27 ·cited 37×
  Florida Farm Bureau denied coverage and refused to defend its insured Eichholz in a personal injury lawsuit, claiming the vehicle involved was excluded under the policy. The trial court found Farm Bureau acted in bad faith by relying on an incorrect policy and ignoring statements
• The Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Parsons Corp.
  430 F.2d 531· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-11 ·cited 33×
  An insurer has a duty to defend an insured when the plaintiff's complaint alleges facts that potentially fall within the policy's coverage, even if other claims in the complaint are excluded. The duty to defend extends until the claim is clearly outside the policy's coverage.
• Lever Bros. Co. v. Atlas Assur. Co., Ltd.
  131 F.2d 770· 7th Cir.· 1942-11-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the bursting of the tank constituted an explosion covered by the insurance policies, and that the defendants bore the burden of proving any applicable exclusion.
• Home INS. Co. OF NEW York v. Davila
  212 F.2d 731· 1st Cir.· 1954-05-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding whether the fire losses were caused by insurrection or rebellion were reversibly erroneous, and also found reversible error in the instructions concerning the validity of settlements and releases.
• Milwaukee Ins. Co. v. Kogen
  240 F.2d 613· 8th Cir.· 1957-02-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a non-waiver agreement extended the time for the insured to demand an appraisal, making the subsequent arbitration award binding.
• AETNA Ins. Co. v. Barnett Bros.
  289 F.2d 30· 8th Cir.· 1961-04-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff interest on the verdict from 60 days after proof of loss, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
• Martin v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  450 F.2d 542· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-03 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the jury could reasonably find the driver operated the vehicle within the scope of permission under Mississippi's minor deviation rule, and that the insurer did not act in bad faith by refusing settlement due to a serious coverage dispute.
• Pendleton v. Pan Am. Fire & Cas. Co.
  317 F.2d 96· 10th Cir.· 1963-05-16 ·cited 17×
  An insurer that unconditionally assumes and conducts the defense of an action against its insured, without reserving its rights, is estopped from later denying coverage based on non-coverage grounds known at the time of assuming the defense.
• Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Quarrier
  175 So. 2d 83· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-04-29 ·cited 16×
  Insurance company Grain Dealers Mutual appealed a summary judgment in a garnishment proceeding arising from a negligence action. The court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, finding the insurer's defenses had already been rejected in the underlying negligence judgment, and impose
• Conn. Fire Ins. Co. v. FOX
  361 F.2d 1· 10th Cir.· 1966-05-26 ·cited 14×
  An insurer can waive the proof of loss requirement, even after the deadline, through the actions of its agents, and a non-waiver agreement does not protect the insurer from such waivers if its agents go beyond mere investigation.
• Atlas Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Standard Brick & Tile Corp.
  264 F.2d 440· 7th Cir.· 1959-01-19 ·cited 12×
  A breach of the Watchman's Clause, a condition precedent to recovery, precludes the insured from recovering on the fire insurance policies, even if the insurer had knowledge of the breach, absent a valid waiver or estoppel.
• Lazzara Oil Co. v. Columbia Cas. Co.
  683 F. Supp. 777· M.D. Fla.· 1988-04-15 ·cited 10×
  Insurers have no duty to defend claims for pure economic losses under policies that define coverage for personal injury, advertising injury, or property damage, and specific notice statutes do not apply to excess insurers without a duty to defend.
• W. Augusta Dev. Corp. v. Giuffrida
  717 F.2d 139· 4th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements of equitable estoppel against the government, particularly detrimental reliance, and thus could not overcome the policy requirement of filing a proof of loss.
• Transamerica Ins. Grp. v. Stephen George Beem and wife
  652 F.2d 663· 6th Cir.· 1981-07-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insurer was not estopped from asserting its defense of lack of notice due to its participation in the defense, as the insured suffered no prejudice and a non-waiver agreement was executed.
• Maurie H. Berman v. The Palatine Ins. Co.
  379 F.2d 371· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence for review and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding jury instructions, striking a complaint paragraph, or rejecting evidence.
• The Charles Stores, Inc. v. AETNA Ins. Co.
  428 F.2d 989· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of waiver of policy defenses, as such defenses can be waived by the insurer's conduct even with a non-waiver agreement.
• Farmers Cas. Co. (Mutual) v. Green
  390 F.2d 188· 10th Cir.· 1968-03-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the insured's actions did not constitute a breach of the cooperation clause, and the insured was not entitled to attorney fees for defending the declaratory judgment action.
• Bergh v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co.
  197 So. 2d 847· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-04-18 ·cited 8×
  Failure to provide timely notice of a claim under a professional liability policy constitutes a material breach, relieving the insurer of coverage obligations, especially when a non-waiver agreement is in place.
• Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lysne
  324 F.2d 290· 8th Cir.· 1963-11-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the insurance policy was in force, precluding summary judgment.
• Jones v. Union Auto. Indem. Ass'n OF Bloomington
  287 F.2d 27· 10th Cir.· 1961-01-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the insurer was not liable under the policy because the driver did not have permission to use the vehicle at the time of the accident, and that the exclusion of a witness's testimony, though erroneous, was not prejudicial.
• Loudermilk v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y.
  199 F.2d 561· 5th Cir.· 1952-11-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the case presented genuine issues of material fact regarding policy acceptance and potential fraud, making it unsuitable for summary judgment.
• Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. J. Transp., Inc.
  880 F.2d 1291· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that res judicata does not bar Empire's claim for reimbursement because the issue of reimbursement was not actually litigated in the prior declaratory judgment action.
• Round Rock Indep. Sch. Dist. v. The First Nat'l Ins. Co. OF Am.
  324 F.2d 280· 5th Cir.· 1963-11-01 ·cited 6×
• Pa. Threshermen & Farmers' Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mrs. Myrtle Louise Thornton
  244 F.2d 823· 4th Cir.· 1957-05-20 ·cited 4×
  An insurer cannot deny liability based on late notice from the insured if the insurer's own dilatory conduct and failure to diligently defend prejudiced the insured, nor can it deny coverage for punitive damages awarded in a negligence case.
• GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Mukamal
  230 So. 3d 62· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-08-23 ·cited 3×
  GEICO appealed summary judgments denying its coverage defense based on breach of cooperation in a wrongful death case. The court affirmed, holding that GEICO failed to comply with Florida's Claims Administration Statute by not following the statutory procedure to deny coverage, i
• Meerdink v. OTT
  307 F.2d 721· 3d Cir.· 1962-08-30 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment without considering the applicability of the California Workmen's Compensation Act, which could have made the exclusion clause inapplicable.
• Steadfast Ins. v. Sheridan Child's. Healthcare Servs., Inc.
  34 F. Supp. 2d 1364· S.D. Fla.· 1998-09-30 ·cited 2×
  An insurance carrier that asserts a defense to coverage cannot unilaterally settle a suit over the objection of its insured and then seek reimbursement from the insured.
• Gus Bennett, Sr. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  950 F.2d 1102· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-15 ·cited 2×
  A jury finding of material misrepresentation regarding contents fraud can lead to voiding the entire fire insurance policy, as determined by the court, and the evidence supported such a finding.
• Draft Sys., Inc. v. David E. Alspach in Bankr. for Rimar Mfg., Inc.
  756 F.2d 293· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 2×
  An insurer that provides a defense under a non-waiver agreement is not estopped from asserting coverage defenses later, as the agreement preserves its rights.
• Boyer v. Am. Cas. Co.
  332 F.2d 708· 2d Cir.· 1964-05-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insured's failure to provide timely notice of the accident breached the insurance policy, and the insurer did not waive its right to deny coverage.
• State Auto. & Cas. Underwriters v. Dodson
  306 F.2d 590· 7th Cir.· 1962-07-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Wisconsin statutes do not permit recovery of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending claims when the insurer is not legally obligated to defend, and that the plaintiff was only entitled to taxable costs.
• Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kitty Hawk Airways, Inc.
  964 F.2d 478· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-30
  The court held that waiver and estoppel cannot create insurance coverage where none exists under the policy terms, and the "Wilkinson exception" requires a showing of harm to the insured from the insurer's defense without a reservation of rights.
• Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Villarreal
  591 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-19
  The court held that summary judgment for the insurer was proper because the insured drove the vehicle without permission and the insurer did not waive its non-coverage rights.
• Travelers Fire Ins. Co. v. Frady
  180 F.2d 339· 4th Cir.· 1950-02-25
  The court held that substantial compliance with the policy's 'requirements in case of loss' clause is sufficient for recovery, and the measure of damages is defined by the policy itself.