Bontempo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 91-3565

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Citation: 604 So.2d 28
• Docket Number: No. 91-3565,91-3565
• Parties: Constance Nancy BONTEMPO, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee. 604 So.2d 28, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1985
• Decision Date: 26 August 1992

Page 28

604 So.2d 28 Constance Nancy BONTEMPO, Appellant,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
corporation, Appellee. No. 91-3565. 604 So.2d 28, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1985 District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District. Aug. 26, 1992.

Diane H. Tutt of Diane H. Tutt, P.A., and Walter T. Hink, III, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert H. Schwartz of Gunther & Whitaker, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in summarily deciding that the appellant was not entitled to recover against the liability insurance carrier of a defunct corporation against whom the appellant had secured a judgment for personal injuries.

In American Fire Casualty Co., v. Collura, 163 So.2d 784, 794 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 171 So.2d 389 (Fla.1964), the court held:

As we view it, the rule in Florida is that an insurance company, in order to avoid liability under its policy on the ground that the insured violated the cooperation

Page 29

clause, must show that the lack of cooperation was material and that it was substantially prejudiced in the particular case by such lack of cooperation. America Fire & Casualty Co. v. Vliet, [148 Fla. 568, 4 So.2d 862 (1941) ] supra; American Universal Insurance Co. v. Stotsberry, [116 So.2d 482 (Fla.App.1959) ] supra; and Barnes v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & F. Mutual Ins. Co., [146 So.2d 119 (Fla.App.1962) ] supra. This doctrine is consistent with the rule that failure to give a compensated surety notice of a principal's default as required in the bond does not relieve the surety where the failure resulted in no loss to it. See Maule Industries, Inc. v. Gaines Construction Co., Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 835.

(Emphasis in original). This view was approved by the Florida Supreme Court in Ramos v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 336 So.2d 71, 75 (Fla.1976):

This Court in American Fire and Casualty Co. v. Vliet, supra, emphasized that to constitute the breach of a policy, the lack of cooperation must be material and the insurance company must show that it was substantially prejudiced in the particular case by failure to cooperate. Furthermore, as is stated in Collura, supra, the insurer must show that it has exercised diligence and good faith in bringing about the cooperation of its insured and must show that it has complied in good faith with the terms of the policy.

Not every failure to cooperate will release the insurance company. Only that failure...