Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 76243,76243 |
| Citation | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 203,575 So.2d 1289 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 203 Donald E. BLANCHARD, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Defendant-Appellee. |
C. Rufus Pennington, III and Rodney S. Margol of Margol & Pennington, P.A., Jacksonville, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Stephen E. Day and Ada A. Hammond of Taylor, Day & Rio, Jacksonville, for defendant-appellee.
Roy D. Wasson, Miami, amicus curiae for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
Sharon Lee Stedman of Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss, Burke & Wechsler, Orlando, amicus curiae for Florida Defense Lawyers Ass'n.
This case is before us on the following questions of Florida law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: 1
2. IF SO, IS JOINDER OF THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 624.155(1)(b)1. IN THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION FOR CONTRACTUAL UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS PERMISSIBLE?
3. IF SO, IS JOINDER OF THE SECTION 624.155(1)(b)1. CLAIM WITH THE CONTRACTUAL CLAIM MANDATORY?
Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 903 F.2d 1398, 1400 (11th Cir.1990). We answer the first question in the negative and accordingly need not reach the other two.
Donald Blanchard suffered permanent bodily injury when he was struck by an automobile driven by an uninsured motorist. The Blanchards were insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), and their policy included uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $200,000. Following State Farm's alleged refusal to make a good faith offer to settle their claim, the Blanchards filed a suit in state court charging the original tortfeasor with negligence and seeking to compel State Farm to perform under the policy. 2 The Blanchards won a verdict in the amount of $396,990. Judgment was entered against the tortfeasor in the full amount of damages and against State Farm in the amount of the policy limits of $200,000. No appeal was taken from the state court judgment.
The Blanchards then commenced suit against State Farm in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes (1987), 3 which is Florida's civil remedy statute for first-party insurer bad faith. In the federal diversity action, the Blanchards sought damages for their inconvenience and anguish caused by State Farm's failure to make a good faith settlement offer and for the excess of the damages over the policy limits assessed in the state court action.
State Farm moved to dismiss, contending that the statutory claim for bad faith under section 624.155 had to be asserted in the original state court action against State Farm for the contractual uninsured motorist benefits and that plaintiffs had "split their cause of action" by not alleging the bad faith claim in the original suit. The district court granted the motion, and the Blanchards appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit granted a joint motion of the Blanchards and State Farm to certify the questions at issue here.
As the Eleventh Circuit noted, there is "a division in the reasoning among the Florida district courts of appeal" on the issue of when a first-person statutory cause of action for bad faith under section 624.155 arises. Blanchard, 903 F.2d at 1399. Several courts have reasoned that the claim arising from bad faith is grounded upon a legal duty to act in good faith, and is thus separate and independent of the claim arising from the contractual obligation to perform. See Opperman v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 515 So.2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 523 So.2d 578 (Fla.1988); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lenard, 531 So.2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); accord Rowland v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 634 F.Supp. 613 (M.D.Fla.1986).
The contrary view has been expressed by the Third District in Schimmel v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 506 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), where the court held that a claim for bad faith is indivisible from the underlying contractual cause of action and, accordingly, a plaintiff must join the two claims in one proceeding to avoid improperly splitting the cause of action.
We agree with the parties, both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dadeland Depot. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine
...action can be instituted. The question certified by the Eleventh Circuit stems from our decision in Blanchard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 575 So.2d 1289 (Fla.1991), wherein we held an insured's underlying first-party action for insurance benefits against the insurer . . .......
-
Venn v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
...Romano, 834 F.2d at 969-70; Cunningham v. Standard Guaranty Ins. Co., 630 So.2d 179, 181 (Fla.1994); see also Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So.2d 1289 (Fla.1991). Therefore, having prevailed in his bad faith action against St. Paul, Venn is entitled to prejudgment interes......
-
Villarreal v. United Fire & Cas. Co.
...accrue until the conclusion of the underlying breach-of-contract case for policy benefits. Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Fla.1991). This means, of course, that there can be no claim preclusion bar based on the prior adjudication. As explained by the Flor......
-
Myers v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co.
...inter alia, Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Shockley , 951 So. 2d 20, 20–21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ; Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 575 So. 2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 1991) ). The insured may obtain this determination of liability and the full extent of his or her damages through means ......
-
Florida Appellate Court Holds That Appraisal Award Constitutes A 'Favorable Resolution' And Permits Insured To Pursue Bad Faith Claim
...have been determined." Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So.2d 1270, 1273 (Fla. 2000) (citing Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 1991)). The court further explained that an insured's action for insurance benefits against the insurer necessarily must be res......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...No. 8:10-cv-00733-T, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56174, at *5-6 (M.D. Fla. June 8, 2010) ( citing Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 575 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 1991) and Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co. , 753 So.2d 1270, 1275 (Fla. 2000)). “[O] nce the existence of liability on the part of t......