Tortious Breach Of Contract

63 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Foy Baxter and Annie Smith Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co.
  285 So. 2d 652· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-11-06 ·cited 110×
  Insured parties sought damages for bad faith handling of an uninsured motorist insurance claim by their insurer. The court held that no fiduciary relationship exists between insurer and insured under uninsured motorist provisions, and thus the insurer cannot be liable for bad fai
• Photovest Corp. v. Fotomat Corp.
  606 F.2d 704· 7th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the district court's procedure of allowing an ex parte trial brief did not violate Rule 5(a) or due process, and that Fotomat failed to demonstrate prejudice from the delayed exchange of briefs.
• Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc.
  797 F.2d 727· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-12 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claims under Title VII, Section 1981, and state law, as well as the breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, due to genuine issues of material fa
• Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co. v. Taylor
  476 So. 2d 281· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-10-08 ·cited 34×
  American Employers' Insurance Company appeals a new trial order and Taylor appeals a directed verdict on his slander claim in this insurance dispute. The court affirms the directed verdict on slander and reverses the new trial order, holding that an insurance policy's concealment
• Sams v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO
  866 F.2d 1380· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-02 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims, characterized as a positive tort flowing from a breach of contract, are governed by the state's six-year statute of limitations for contract actions, not the six-month limitations period for hybrid section 301/fair representation claims
• Canada DRY Corp. v. Nehi Bev. Co.
  723 F.2d 512· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the jury's finding of liability for breach of contract and award of compensatory damages were supported by sufficient evidence, but reversed the verdict for illegal discrimination and the award of punitive damages.
• Bright v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.
  844 F.2d 436· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 31×
  The court held that Wisconsin law does not allow punitive damages for a breach of contract without an independent tort duty, and that the district court did not err in admitting expert testimony or awarding fees and costs.
• Rubio v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. & Michele Vincent-Belizaire
  662 So. 2d 956· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-08-16 ·cited 28×
  The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal with prejudice of an amended complaint alleging breach of insurance contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious failure to pay. The court held that insureds must be afforded the opportu
• Perkins v. Time Ins. Co. & Randall Davis
  898 F.2d 470· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-18 ·cited 24×
  State law claims against an employer's ERISA plan for tortious breach of contract are preempted by ERISA, but claims against an insurance agent for fraudulent inducement to enroll in the plan may not be preempted.
• Jones v. Benefit Tr. Life Ins. Co.
  800 F.2d 1397· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting judgment n.o.v. on emotional distress damages, and that the jury's award should be reinstated, allowing the plaintiff to amend his prayer for relief.
• United States v. Huff
  165 F.2d 720· 5th Cir.· 1948-01-13 ·cited 20×
  The dissent argues the majority erred in holding the United States suable by third-party tenants on a contract with landowners, and in allowing suits for damages sounding in tort.
• Lise Greene and Gilbert C. Greene v. Well Care HMO, Inc.
  778 So. 2d 1037· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-02-14 ·cited 19×
  The Greenes appealed dismissal of their bad faith and tort claims against Well Care HMO for denying coverage of prescribed hyperbaric oxygen treatment for radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis. The court held that no statutory private cause of action exists under Florida's HMO A
• Little OIL Co., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  852 F.2d 441· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-19 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding constructive termination under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act were proper, and that claims under California's unfair business practices statutes and Franchise Investment Law were correctly dismissed. The court also affirm
• Sperbeck v. A. L. Burbank & Co., Inc.
  190 F.2d 449· 2d Cir.· 1951-07-11 ·cited 18×
  A claim for accrued maintenance and cure, which fully matured while the seaman was alive, survives the seaman's death.
• MacKAY v. Pfeil
  827 F.2d 540· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-04 ·cited 14×
  Federal district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to review state court judgments, even if the review is sought via diversity jurisdiction and claims of error in the state court's proceedings.
• Cayman Exploration Corp. v. United GAS Pipe Line Co.
  873 F.2d 1357· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and RICO because it lacked factual allegations of agreement, injury, particularity of fraud, or a pattern of racketeering activity. The court affirmed the dismissal.
• DELTA Steamships Lines, Inc. v. Albano
  768 F.2d 728· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that service by certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt requested, without adherence to the specific requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2)(C)(ii), is insufficient.
• Horizons Rehab., Inc. v. Health Care & Ret. Corp.
  810 So. 2d 958· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-01-04 ·cited 12×
  Horizons Rehabilitation appeals summary judgment dismissing 13 of 14 counts in its breach of contract and tort claims against Health Care and Retirement Corporation arising from their business relationship involving therapy services and financing. The court affirmed the dismissal
• Braidi Trading Co. v. Anthony R. Abraham Enters., Inc.
  469 So. 2d 955· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-06-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding agency relationships, precluding summary judgment.
• Gorman v. Se. Fid. Ins. Co.
  775 F.2d 655· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insurer had an arguable reason to deny the claim, precluding punitive damages, because Mississippi law did not clearly require notice for a policy that expired due to non-payment and lack of renewal action by the insured.
• William T. Connolly and Lizabeth v. Connolly
  849 F.2d 525· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Florida Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for an employee's claims against a workers' compensation carrier for mishandling a claim and intentionally mistreating the claimant, even for alleged intentional torts.
• Hechler v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO
  834 F.2d 942· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 9×
  The court held that Hechler's section 301 claim for breach of contract was timely filed under Florida's five-year statute of limitations for actions upon a written contract.
• Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Nancy (Lloyd) Campbell
  433 So. 2d 25· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-06-15 ·cited 9×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the EEOC, when suing for backpay or injunctive relief for individuals, is not acting in its sovereign capacity and therefore should be bound by the applicable state statute of limitations.
• Burger King Corp. v. Weaver
  798 F. Supp. 684· S.D. Fla.· 1992-05-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the express language of the franchise agreements did not preclude a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but dismissed other counts for failure to state a claim or lack of evidence.
• Jones v. Cont'l Ins.
  670 F. Supp. 937· S.D. Fla.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Florida Statutes Section 624.155(1)(b)(1) applies to first-party actions and is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and that the plaintiff stated a claim under it. The court also dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and tort
• Cliff MAY v. Watt
  822 F.2d 896· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to submit jury instructions on contract rescission and quantum meruit recovery, but affirmed the jury's finding of breach of contract and directed verdicts on other claims.
• Vogel v. Am. Warranty Home Serv. Corp. and/or Its Successors
  695 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge's ex parte communication with the jury and erroneous jury instructions regarding the burden of proof constituted reversible error. The court also suggested that promotional literature could be considered part of an insurance contract under Miss
• Peel v. Am. Fid. Assurance Co.
  680 F.2d 374· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Mississippi Education Association acted as the insured's agent, imputing knowledge of policy amendments and that punitive and extra-contractual damages were not supported by the evidence.
• Craft v. Econ. Fire & Cas. Co.
  572 F.2d 565· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an insurer's handling of an uninsured motorist claim may give rise to a tortious breach of contract claim under Indiana law if the insurer acts in bad faith. Summary judgment for the insurer was improper as genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the
• Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
  61 F. Supp. 2d 1326· S.D. Fla.· 1999-07-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that plaintiffs are not entitled to assert a claim for punitive damages because their allegations constitute a breach of contract, not an independent tort, and the request to amend the complaint was untimely and would cause undue prejudice.
• The Life Ins. Co. OF Va. v. The Murray Inv. Co. & Murray Advisory Corp.
  646 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-29 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the jury's findings of fraud were sufficient to support an award of exemplary damages, and that recent amendments to Article 2226 of the Texas Civil Statutes allowed for the recovery of attorney's fees in pending actions.
• Evans v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
  384 So. 2d 959· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-06-23 ·cited 7×
  A policyholder sued his insurer for unreasonably withholding written consent to settle a claim against an underinsured tortfeasor, and for damages arising from the insurer's alleged bad faith attempt to force forfeiture of his underinsured motorist coverage. The court reversed tw
• Suburban Propane v. Proctor GAS, Inc.
  953 F.2d 780· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's award of consequential damages for lost customers was proper because such loss was foreseeable at the time of contracting.
• Knight v. Rasool S. Sharif
  875 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the letters of intent did not constitute a binding contract, and affirmed the magistrate's grant of summary judgment. It also affirmed in part and remanded in part the denial of Rule 11 sanctions.
• Szumigala v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
  853 F.2d 274· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 'limits of liability' clause in the multi-vehicle policy precluded stacking of medical payment coverages, but that the insurer's delay in paying medical benefits under a separate policy raised a jury issue of bad faith.
• Terrain Enters., Inc. v. The W. Cas. & Sur. Co.
  774 F.2d 1320· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an attorney's settlement offer, accepted by the opposing party, is enforceable when the attorney has apparent authority, even if the client later disavows it due to a misunderstanding.
• Carter Elec. Co. & Gen. Ins. Co. of Am. v. The Travelers Indem. Co. & Beacon Constr. Co. of Mass., Inc.
  382 F.2d 567· 10th Cir.· 1967-08-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in striking the claim for punitive damages, denying pre-judgment interest, or in its findings regarding performance delays and set-offs, and that any error in denying further discovery was not prejudicial.
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. Royal Oak Enters., Inc.
  429 F. Supp. 2d 1265· M.D. Fla.· 2004-03-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that claims for negligent or bad faith refusal to settle are dismissed because the underlying negligence claim was barred by workers' compensation immunity. Tort claims are dismissed under the economic loss rule.
• Sutter Home Winery, Inc. v. Vintage Selections, Ltd.
  971 F.2d 401· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The choice-of-law provision in the contract requires the application of California law to contractual disputes, as Arizona law is not mandatory.
• First Sec. Bank OF Beaver v. Taylor
  964 F.2d 1053· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bank waived its arguments regarding the oral agreement's uncertainty and the Statute of Frauds by failing to properly raise them in its motion for a directed verdict, and that the borrowers' claims for additional jury instructions were not supported by law
• Opperman v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  515 So. 2d 263· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-10-01 ·cited 4×
  The Oppermans appealed the dismissal of their bad faith claim against their insurer Nationwide, arguing that Florida Statute § 624.155 creates a first-party cause of action for bad faith in settling insurance claims. The court agreed and reversed, holding that the statute's plain
• Helms v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  794 F.2d 188· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 4×
  A simple breach of contract, without more, does not constitute a deceptive trade practice under the Texas DTPA, but a negligence claim may be actionable despite a contractual limitation of liability clause.
• Tenneco OIL Co. v. Joiner
  696 F.2d 768· 10th Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in requiring Tenneco to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence when suing its agent for breach of fiduciary duty, and that the trial court should make specific findings regarding the imposition of a constructive trust.
• The Rock Island Bank v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  692 F.2d 1100· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a subrogated claim against an agent for tortious breach of contract is barred by the statute of limitations if filed after the limitations period for the breach of contract, and that an insurer does not have an independent cause of action for indemnification a
• Dupree v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
  956 F.2d 219· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the tortious breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that the implied contract claim failed because the alleged representations were too vague to create an implied contract. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal and su
• Valente-Kritzer Video v. Callan Pinckney
  881 F.2d 772· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the breach of contract claim was preempted by the Copyright Act because the oral agreement was not in writing and could not be severed. The fraud claim, however, was not preempted because it contained an 'extra element' of misrepresentation.
• State Nat'l Ins. v. Anzhela Explorer, L.L.C.
  812 F. Supp. 2d 1326· S.D. Fla.· 2011-08-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the specific oral agreement for trip coverage from Florida to Louisiana superseded the written navigational limits in the policy for that voyage, and that material non-disclosure regarding watertight compartments did not void coverage.
• LaFOUNTAIN v. Est. OF Mattie M. Kelly
  732 So. 2d 503· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-06-02 ·cited 2×
  The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a lessee's claims for breach of a lease renewal option, holding that an option to renew a lease that specifies the renewal period but fails to specify the rental amount or a method for determining it is un
• Denholm v. Houghton Mifflin Co. & the Riverside Publ'g Co.
  912 F.2d 357· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-27 ·cited 2×
  Acceptance of a remittitur bars appeal of issues inextricably intertwined with the remitted claim, but not of separate and distinct claims dismissed prior to the remittitur. The court affirmed dismissals of fraud and tortious breach of contract claims.
• Silvera v. The Mut. Life INS. Co. OF NEW York
  884 F.2d 423· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 2×
  A municipal employer establishing or maintaining an employee welfare benefit plan by purchasing a group insurance policy for its employees qualifies as a 'governmental plan' exempt from ERISA coverage.