Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish
| Citation | 464 So.2d 530,10 Fla. L. Weekly 66 |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 63363,63363 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 66 BANKERS MULTIPLE LINE INSURANCE CO., Petitioner, v. Joseph D. FARISH, Jr., etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Michael P. Mullen of Burke, Griffin, Chomicz & Wienke, Chicago, Ill., and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Search, P.A., West Palm Beach, Harvie S. Duval, North Miami, and Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondents.
We accepted this case because Farish v. Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co., 425 So.2d 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), which reverses the trial judge's order granting a new trial, conflicts with Arab Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So.2d 1039 (Fla.1982), and St. Regis Paper Co. v. Watson, 428 So.2d 243 (Fla.1983). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the state constitution. Once we take jurisdiction because of conflict on one issue, we may decide all issues. Bould v. Touchette, 349 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1977). We both quash and approve portions of the district court opinion.
Following her husband's death in an accident, Jill Smith signed a contingent fee contract with the law firm of Farish & Farish to represent her in any claim that she might have. John D. MacArthur knew Smith as a young waitress in the coffee shop of the Colonnades Beach Hotel which MacArthur owned. MacArthur was also president and chairman of the board of Bankers.
Following the accident, MacArthur, through an employee of Bankers, contacted Smith and offered her a job and medical care coverage under Bankers' group insurance policy. He also learned of Smith's contract with Farish. MacArthur, less than an admirer of Farish, soon let his displeasure with the contract for representation be known to Smith. Ultimately, Smith discharged Farish and turned to an attorney selected by MacArthur to represent her for a while. Finally, she contacted a law firm in Chicago (she was living in Illinois after her husband was killed), which firm associated West Palm Beach counsel, who in turn associated Farish to try the case. Farish tried the wrongful death action, but the verdict was less than he had anticipated. It developed that the defendant was insured by Bankers, who satisfied the judgment.
Farish sued MacArthur and Bankers for tortious interference with his contract with Smith, claiming both compensatory and punitive damages. MacArthur subsequently died, with his estate being substituted as a defendant. After what the record discloses to be an acrimonious trial, Farish received $50,000 compensatory and $2,000,000 punitive damage awards against Bankers, but did not prevail on either compensatory or punitive damages against MacArthur's estate. The trial judge granted Bankers' motion for new trial, citing as grounds the failure to join Farish's partners as indispensible parties plaintiff, the court's error in allowing Farish's partner to testify as an expert in expressing a value of the original case, and the court's error in giving improper and incomplete punitive damage instructions. The trial judge denied Bankers' motion for entry of judgment on its behalf because of the exoneration of MacArthur.
Since the last point would result in Bankers prevailing on all issues, we first direct our attention to that issue. It is generally recognized that, when a principal's liability rests solely on the doctrine of respondeat superior, a principal cannot be held liable if the agent is exonerated. Williams v. Hines, 80 Fla. 690, 86 So. 695 (1920). On the other hand, when there are additional acts by the principal, an exoneration of the agent does not automatically preclude a finding of liability against the principal. Cutchins v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad, 101 So.2d 857 (Fla.1958).
The trial judge recognized this principle and noted it when he denied Bankers' motion. There is no doubt that MacArthur engaged in the primary wrongdoing complained of by Farish. However, Bankers also participated in the wrongdoing by visits of an officer of Bankers with Smith 1 and the offer of Bankers' coverage. While admittedly tenuous, we cannot say, in view of the trial judge's assessment of the facts, that the additional activity of Bankers constitutes an insufficient predicate, when considered in conjunction with MacArthur's activities, for a judgment against Bankers in the face of no liability of MacArthur. 2
We agree with the district court that under the circumstances of this case no error occurred by failing to add two additional members of the Farish law firm to the complaint. Also, no error occurred by allowing a partner to give opinion testimony. Thus, we concur that these two reasons were insufficient to grant a new trial.
We differ, however, on the reversal of the order granting a new trial because of the punitive damage charges. The trial judge determined that the charges given the jury did not adequately apprise it that awarding punitive damages is discretionary. The district court, noting that the charges varied from the standard jury instructions, found that the jury had been adequately instructed. On the face of the charges one could reach the district court's conclusion.
On the other hand, the trial judge was in the best position to make this evaluation. Farish's counsel frequently referred to these jury charges in his closing argument. The trial judge could evaluate any impact on the jury in determining whether the jury had been charged fairly and impartially on the issue of punitive damages and whether it knew that awarding punitive damages along with compensatory damages was discretionary, even if the elements authorizing punitive damages were present.
A clear understanding of the discretionary nature of punitive damages was especially critical in this case because of the elements that must be proved in a claim of tortious interference with a contract. In order to prevail in his suit Farish had to prove, among other things, that Bankers intentionally and unjustifiedly interfered with the Farish-Smith contract. Sutton v. Stewart, 358 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Smith v. Ocean State Bank, 335 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So.2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA) cert. denied, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Four Nines Gold, Inc. v. 71 Const., Inc.
...action was directed to remove the general contractor as a player to provide economic advantage for the actor. Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So.2d 530 (Fla.1985); Alberts v. Devine, 395 Mass. 59, 479 N.E.2d 113, cert. denied 474 U.S. 1013, 106 S.Ct. 546, 88 L.Ed.2d 475 (1985)......
-
Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle
...inflicted on the plaintiff, as required by Florida and federal law. See § 768.74(5)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997); Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So.2d 530, 533 (Fla.1985); Langmead v. Admiral Cruises, Inc., 696 So.2d 1189, 1193-94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (under Florida and federal due pr......
-
Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc.
...liable for Assalone's actions. Assalone was not the managing agent or primary owner of the bank. See Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So.2d 530 (Fla.1985). One of several bank vice-presidents, Assalone was not a member of the Board of Directors or the loan committee. Further, h......
-
In re Std. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases -- Report No. 09-01
...be given when the demand for punitive damages is based on the conduct of a managing agent or principal. Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co. v. Farish, 464 So.2d 530 (Fla.1985). That person should be named in 503.1b(2). Pending further development in the law, the committee takes no position ......
-
The Interference Torts
...425 So. 2d 12 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (reversing order granting new trial on punitive damages), quashed in part, approved in part, 464 So. 2d 530, 532-33 (Fla. 1985) (upholding trial judge’s grant of new trial to adequately instruct the jury that punitive damages were discretionary in na......
-
Contract cases
...Enterprises, Inc. v. Wometco Theatres, Inc. , 160 So. 209, 210 (Fla. 1935). See Also 1. Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co. v. Farish , 464 So.2d 530, 532 (Fla. 1985) (“In order to prevail in his suit Farish had to prove, among other things, that Bankers intentionally and unjustifiedly inte......
-
For Whom the Statute Tolls: An Analytical Look at the Tolling Provision in Florida's Product Liability Statute of Repose.
...of the company."); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So. 2d 515, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985)) (holding that one of several bank vice presidents, who was not on the board of directors or the loan committee, did not qualify ......
-
When Is a manager a managing agent?
...the managing agent question for the first time when it clarified its Mercury Motors opinion in Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985). The court limited its prior decision by stating that the rule of law requiring proof of independent corporate fault was not me......