Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Earnest
| Decision Date | 03 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1149,80-1149 |
| Citation | 395 So.2d 230 |
| Parties | SOUTHEASTERN FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Linda Joyce EARNEST n/k/a Linda Castillo, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Haddad & Josephs and Michael Seth Cohen, Miami, for appellant.
Sidney L. Syna, Miami, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C. J., and SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ.
In accordance with our prior opinion in this case, Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Earnest, 378 So.2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the lower court conducted a non-jury trial to determine whether Ms. Earnest could establish that the UM carrier, Southeastern, had not been prejudiced by her unauthorized settlement with and release of the under-insured tortfeasor, Mrs. Bradwell. The trial judge found that an absence of prejudice had been affirmatively established and accordingly entered judgment for Earnest. 1 The judgment is affirmed.
There was overwhelming evidence that the negligent motorist, who was an impoverished maid, was completely judgment-proof. 2 For this reason, the record fully supports the determination that the release was "demonstrably immaterial" to any otherwise-existing ability of Southeastern to recover. Bass v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. of Hartford, Conn., 199 So.2d 790, 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), cert. disch., 206 So.2d 212 (Fla.1968); see also, Kaplan v. Phoenix of Hartford Ins. Co., 215 So.2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 220 So.2d 365 (Fla.1969). Based on the twenty year viability of a Florida judgment 3 and the remote possibility that any debtor may eventually secure some funds with which to pay at least a part of it, the appellant argues that depriving a carrier of any judgment, however uncollectible, against any defendant, however insolvent, is necessarily prejudicial. Quite apart from the fact that its acceptance would completely negate the "no-prejudice" rule itself, as adopted in Bass, Kaplan and the earlier decision in this very case, this contention is so utterly contrary to common business sense and commercial reality as to be unworthy of any comment beyond summary rejection. A judgment against Mrs. Bradwell would not have been worth the paper it was printed on and no reasonable person would have expended the costs, let alone the attorney's fees, it would have required to get it. When Southeastern lost the opportunity to secure the judgment, it lost nothing. Under our law, a technical and illusory "loss" of this kind cannot result in the forfeiture of insurance coverage.
Affirmed.
1 In the light of our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co.
...the UIM policy is forfeited. See, e.g., Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bough (1992), 310 Ark. 21, 834 S.W.2d 637; Southeastern Fid. Ins. Co. v. Earnest (Fla.App.1981), 395 So.2d 230; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pacific Rent All, Inc. (1999), 90 Hawaii 315, 978 P.2d 753; Bantz v. Bongard (1993),......
-
Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Jungkans
...technical and illusory ‘loss' of this kind cannot result in the forfeiture of insurance coverage.” Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Earnest, 395 So.2d 230, 231 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981). ¶ 26 We agree that “[a]llowing an insurer to avoid coverage when it lost subrogation rights which car......
-
Hasper v. Center Mut. Ins. Co.
...that might have been collectable in the future. This theory has been widely rejected. See, e.g., Southeastern Fid. Ins. Co. v. Earnest, 395 So.2d 230, 230-31 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1981); Bantz, 864 P.2d at 623-24; Kapadia, 418 N.W.2d at 852; Green, 2003 UT 48, ¶ 33, 89 P.3d 97. Allowing an insu......
-
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INS. CO. v. Green
...834 S.W.2d 637, 640 (1992); Sutch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 672 A.2d 17, 21-22 (Del.1995); Southeastern Fid. Ins. Co. v. Earnest, 395 So.2d 230, 230-31 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Taylor v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 90 Hawai'i 302, 978 P.2d 740, 749 (1999); Bantz v. Bongard, 124 Idaho ......