Morrison v. Hugger, 77-2096
| Decision Date | 28 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-2096,77-2096 |
| Citation | 369 So.2d 614 |
| Parties | Wayne Walter MORRISON et al., Plaintiffs, v. James HUGGER et al., Defendants. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael Foster of Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughan & Genders, Tampa, for plaintiffs.
Edward M. Waller, Jr. of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, Tampa, for defendants.
Plaintiff, Wayne Walter Morrison, as Administrator of the Estate of Kathleen B. Morrison, deceased, filed this action seeking to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of his mother, Kathleen B. Morrison. The decedent was killed in an accident in Hillsborough County, Florida, on April 12, 1971, when her automobile was struck by a bus owned by defendant Wright Fruit Company, Inc. and driven by its employee James Hugger. The plaintiff brought this action against Hugger, Wright Fruit Company, Inc. and its insurer Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company. At the trial of the cause, uncontroverted evidence was introduced that at the time of the accident Hugger was intoxicated and did not stop the bus in time to avoid running a red light and crashing into the decedent's car. In addition, there was evidence submitted to the jury that the brakes on the bus may not have been working at the time of the accident and that prior to the accident Mr. Wright, the President and owner of Wright Fruit Company, was advised of problems with the brakes on the bus. Nevertheless, he instructed Hugger to use the bus during the weekend, when the accident happened, and have them repaired the following week. There was also evidence of cans of brake fluid found in the bus after the accident.
The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages against Hugger and Wright Fruit Company. The jury was instructed, pursuant to the Standard Florida Jury Instructions, on compensatory damages. In addition, the jury was instructed that Wright Fruit Company was responsible for any acts of its employee while acting within the scope and course of his employment and also was instructed that if any defendant found to be liable to the plaintiff acted with malice, moral turpitude, wantonness, willfulness or reckless indifference to the rights of others, the jury might in its discretion assess punitive damages against such defendant as punishment and as a deterrent to others. The jury was also instructed that it might assess punitive damages against one defendant and not the other or against more than one defendant in different amounts.
After deliberating, the jury awarded the plaintiff $40,000 in compensatory damages against Hugger and Wright Fruit Company, $40,000 in punitive damages against Wright Fruit Company and $5,000 in punitive damages against Hugger.
The court entered final judgment in accordance with the jury verdicts and, initially, entered a final judgment in the amount of $40,000 against Wright Fruit Company, Inc. and Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company for punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered an order vacating the judgment insofar as it purported to award punitive damages against Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company.
In addition, in its order granting motion to vacate, the court ordered the parties to file whatever pleadings they deemed necessary in order to raise the question of insurance coverage of punitive damages so that the court might decide that issue. Pursuant to the court's order, the insurance company filed its Post Trial Crossclaim and Counterclaim and Action for Declaratory Relief. Also pursuant to the court's order, the plaintiff filed a Writ of Garnishment to be served upon the insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hensley v. Erie Ins. Co.
...that the public policy prohibition in regard to insurance against punitives in Florida is not without exception. In Morrison v. Hugger, 369 So.2d 614 (Fla.App.1979), judgment for punitive damages was upheld against the insurance company of the employer based on a theory that his policy cove......
-
Dorsey v. Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
...cases addressing an insurance company's liability for punitive damages in the face of an equivocal verdict. See Morrison v. Hugger, 369 So.2d 614 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979), holding that if it is not possible to tell whether a jury rendered its verdict on a vicarious liability theory or another......
-
U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould
...of an insurer for punitive damages assessed against an employer and a negligent employee-driver was discussed in Morrison v. Hugger, 369 So.2d 614 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). The employer's insurance company attempted to avoid the payment of punitive damages as being against public policy or illegal......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Wackenhut Corp.
...for respondent. PER CURIAM. Approved. 418 So.2d 1013. U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1983); Morrison v. Hugger, 369 So.2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). It is so ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ......