Wrongful Refusal To Defend

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

• Steil v. Fla. Physicians' Ins. Reciprocal
  448 So. 2d 589· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-04-13 ·cited 55×
  A malpractice plaintiff settled her claim against a physician after the insurer wrongfully refused to defend, obtaining an assignment of the doctor's rights against the insurer and releasing the doctor from liability. The court held that despite a 'no action' clause requiring fin
• Dunn v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co.
  631 So. 2d 1103· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-12-23 ·cited 46×
  Dunn, an injured third party, appealed a summary judgment in his bad faith suit against National Security Fire and Casualty Company, seeking punitive damages, attorney's fees from the underlying tort suit, and recovery for mental suffering. The court affirmed the denial of attorn
• Gallagher v. Dupont
  918 So. 2d 342· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-12-09 ·cited 39×
  Dupont sought to enforce a federal civil rights judgment against the Risk Management Trust Fund through mandamus and garnishment after the Fund refused to defend its insured employee's estate in the underlying suit. The court reversed summary judgment for the Fund, holding that a
• Thomas v. W. World Ins. Co.
  343 So. 2d 1298· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-03-23 ·cited 33×
  The Thomases sought recovery from their liability insurer, Western World Insurance Company, for the full amount of a judgment against them ($18,459.73) after the insurer wrongfully refused to defend a negligence action, despite having actual notice that the claim sounded in negli
• Seward v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  392 F.2d 723· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-20 ·cited 28×
  An insurer is not liable for damages in excess of policy limits for wrongfully refusing to defend an insured unless there was an offer of settlement that the insurer might have accepted or used for negotiation.
• SEA Shore Motel Corp. & Sea Scape Motel Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. & Emery-Richardson & Assocs., Inc.
  233 So. 2d 651· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-03-16 ·cited 22×
  Sea Shore Motel and Sea Scape Motel appealed a summary judgment in favor of their insurer, Fireman's Fund, and the denial of their motion to amend their complaint. The court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend and that the i
• The Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Gulf Ins. Co.
  776 F.2d 1380· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the City of Peoria did not adequately tender its defense to Gulf Insurance Company, thus Gulf had no duty to defend and was not estopped from denying coverage.
• Tropical Park, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  357 So. 2d 253· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-04-11 ·cited 13×
  Tropical Park, an insured horse racetrack owner, appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of its liability insurance carrier, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, which refused to defend and pay a negligence claim filed by an exercise boy injured while exercising a horse
• GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Pruitt
  122 So. 3d 484· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-09-25 ·cited 10×
  GEICO appeals partial summary judgment orders regarding the validity and good faith of a consent judgment entered by the estate of its insured in a consolidated declaratory action. The Third District Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal as taken from non-final, non-appealable ord
• Stacia Norris v. Colony Ins. Co.
  760 So. 2d 1010· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-06-14 ·cited 10×
  Plaintiff was beaten and robbed at a gas station, sued the station for negligent maintenance and spoliation of evidence, and the station's insurer denied coverage based on an assault and battery exclusion. The court held that although the insurer had a duty to defend based on the
• Preuss v. United States Fire Ins. Co.
  414 So. 2d 249· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The trial court erred in denying attorneys fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying tort action, as it had jurisdiction to award such fees.
• Coleman v. Holecek
  542 F.2d 532· 10th Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Allstate wrongfully refused to defend its insured, making it liable for the full judgment amount, and that attorney's fees were recoverable in a garnishment proceeding under the Kansas insurance code.
• Wrangen v. Pa. Lumbermans Mut. Ins.
  593 F. Supp. 2d 1273· S.D. Fla.· 2008-11-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that discovery into the underlying facts of liability and causation is relevant and permissible in an action to enforce a consent judgment against an insurer, as it pertains to the reasonableness of the settlement and the insurer's good faith.
• In re The Est. OF Jorge Luis Arroyo, Jr. v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co.
  211 So. 3d 240· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-01-18 ·cited 6×
  Reyes appeals orders from probate and circuit courts regarding settlement of a negligence suit against an estate and a subsequent bad-faith claim against the estate's insurer, Infinity. The court reverses all three orders, holding that Infinity improperly intervened in probate pr
• The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Thomas
  315 So. 2d 111· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-04-09 ·cited 6×
  Travelers Indemnity Company wrongfully refused to defend Matthew F. Thomas, a stockholder, director, and officer of Curry-Thomas Hardware, Inc., in a lawsuit alleging personal injury torts including malicious prosecution. The court held that the insurance policy clearly covered T
• Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Gold Coast Elevator, Inc.
  701 So. 2d 904· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-11-26 ·cited 3×
  An insurer violated Florida's insurance claims administration statute by unilaterally retaining counsel to defend an insured in a personal injury case while asserting a coverage defense for late notice, rather than obtaining counsel that was mutually agreeable to both parties. Th
• Rider v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  514 F.2d 780· 10th Cir.· 1975-04-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurer's failure to investigate the policy terms and its subsequent wrongful refusal to defend and settle claims rendered it liable for judgments exceeding policy limits.
• United States Fire Ins. v. Mikes
  576 F. Supp. 2d 1303· M.D. Fla.· 2007-10-16 ·cited 1×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting summary judgment for the plaintiff, U.S. Fire, and denying the defendants' motions. The court declared U.S. Fire not liable under its policies for any portion of the settlement.
• Steadfast Storm Sys. Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-16
  The court held that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify because the employee's claim of sexual assault fell under the policy's sexual misconduct exclusion, and thus the plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and wrongful refusal to defend were properly dismissed.
• The Peninsula at St. John's Ctr. Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-31
  A condominium association sought to recover $8.5 million from an insurance company under a Coblentz agreement (a settlement where an insured collects from its insurer after the insurer wrongfully refused to defend) based on construction defects at a residential project. The court
• Lewis v. Allied World Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-04-03
  A third-party bad faith claim against an insurer is premature until coverage and liability are determined, just as in first-party claims.
• Davis v. Great N. Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-01-11
  The court held that the insurer did not wrongfully refuse to defend and that the Coblentz agreement was unenforceable due to unreasonableness and bad faith, and also due to the insured's material breach of the cooperation provision.
• Stephens v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
  490 F. Supp. 2d 1055· S.D. Fla.· 2013-01-07
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendant insurer, finding that the decedent was a statutory employee of the insured contractor, thus falling under the policy's employer's liability exclusion.
• Foremost Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Home Indem. Co.
  897 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-21
  The court held that Home's policy covered the insured's liability, but the Stowers doctrine did not apply because the insured suffered no harm due to a covenant not to execute. Subrogation was limited to the policy limit.
• Curtis v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
  760 F.2d 114· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-26
  Summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the premium finance agreement contained a power of attorney clause authorizing the bank to cancel the policy.
• Coffin v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  429 F.2d 1312· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-14
  The court held that the aviation insurance policy was not ambiguous regarding passenger coverage and affirmed the dismissal.
• Thoresen v. Dover Roth
  351 F.2d 573· 7th Cir.· 1965-09-29
  The court held that the insurer wrongfully refused to defend its insured and was liable for attorney's fees incurred in defending the underlying lawsuit.