State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. St. Godard

• Decision Date: 10 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 4D05-366.,4D05-366.
• Citation: 936 So.2d 5
• Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Gerald A. ST. GODARD and Rachael St. Godard, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

936 So.2d 5

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Gerald A. ST. GODARD and Rachael St. Godard, Appellees.

No. 4D05-366.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 10, 2006.

Rehearing Denied September 8, 2006.

Frances F. Guasch of Luis E. Ordonez & Associates, Miami, for appellant.

Barbara J. Compiani and Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Jane Kreusler-Walsh, P.A., and Christopher M. Larmoyeux of Larmoyeux & Bone, P.L., West Palm Beach, for appellees.

FARMER, J.

This appeal stems from a trial judge's decision not to limit a judgment on an uninsured motorist's (UM) claim to the policy limits. Because there was no basis pleaded or litigated in this case for damages greater than the UM coverage afforded by the insurer, we reverse.

Before suit was filed, the attorney for the insureds wrote their motor vehicle insurance carrier, requesting the information specified in section 627.4137.¹ State Farm responded on a letterhead with the legend "State Farm Insurance Companies,"² [e.s.] stating a claim number, identifying the insured as Gerry A. St. Godard, and stating a date of loss. The body of the letter said:

In response to your request, please find insurance information regarding policy number 6182-373-59F for the above date of loss.

1. The name of the insurer:

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

2. The name of each insured: Gerry A. St. Godard

Rachael St. Godard

3. Available coverage is as follows:

* Bodily Injury Liability: 100,000/300,000

* Property Damage Liability: 50,000

* Personal Injury Coverage: P10/No deductible

* Medical Payment Coverage: 5,000

* Comprehensive: $500 Deductible

* Collision: $500 Deductible

* Emergency Road Service

* Rental Coverage: R1 80%/500

* Uninsured Motorist—Non Stacking: 100,000/ 300,000

4. Policy or coverage defenses known to the Company at this time: None at this time

5. Umbrella or excess insurance known to the Company at this time: State Farm Fire & Casualty Policy # 79CE1564 Limits: $1,000,000³

Relying on paragraph 5, the insureds argue that damages under UM policy number 6182-373-59F greater than $100,000 were available because of the reference to umbrella or excess policy number 79CE1564 mentioned in the above response. They also argue that they were asserting a bad faith claim against their UM insurer that was not premature. We set out the history of this case to demonstrate the basis for our disagreement with these arguments.

The insureds⁴ filed suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) and alleged in paragraph 5 of their Complaint the following:

At all times material hereto, there was in full force and effect a policy of automobile insurance issued by the Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, which extended uninsured motorist coverage to the Plaintiffs. The policy is identified as number 6182-373-59F. A copy of said policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

The Complaint also alleged that an insured suffered an automobile accident caused by an uninsured driver in which he incurred injuries and damages and that he had complied with all conditions precedent to UM coverage. Their pleading closed with a prayer for "judgment for damages" against defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company under the UM coverage afforded by policy number 6182-373-59F.

Thus the only claim alleged in the Complaint against their UM insurer was the husband's claim for UM benefits arising from the accident in which they alleged that the driver was uninsured or underinsured, together with his wife's derivative claim for loss of consortium. The insureds made no allegation or prayer for relief in which they sought damages greater than the UM coverage provided in the insurance contract on which they based their suit. They included no claim against State Farm sounding in bad faith in their action. They sought damages only within the UM coverage provided in policy number 6182-373-59F. Their Complaint never mentioned or sought damages under the umbrella or excess policy, number 79CE1564. Similarly, they failed to name and join State Farm Fire and Casualty as a party defendant in this action.

In its Answer to the Complaint, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance alleged in paragraph 5 the following:

Defendant admits that at all times material hereto, there was in full force and effect a policy of automobile insurance issued by said Defendant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, which extended uninsured motorist coverage to the Plaintiffs and that said policy of insurance was policy number 6182-373-59F. Defendants attorney does not have a policy of insurance attached to his copy of the Complaint and does not know if it was attached to the original served upon STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. Defendant would further state that said policy of insurance speaks for itself, and Plaintiffs' claims, if any, are subject to all the terms, provisions, conditions, definitions, exclusions, and limitations of said insurance policy.

Further, State Farm alleged in paragraph 11 that the UM coverage applied only to any difference "between the sum of such benefits and the damages sustained, up to the maximum amount of such coverage provided under the policy alleged." [e.s.] In paragraph 14, State Farm again alleged that plaintiffs' claims under the UM policy were:

subject to the limits of uninsured and/or underinsured motorist coverage provided in the policy of the Defendant issued to the named insureds/Plaintiffs, and this Defendant's liability, if any, is entirely dependent and contingent upon the provisions and conditions set forth in the aforementioned policy. [e.s.]

In the same pleading, however, State Farm denied that the insured's injury or condition had been actually caused by the accident; denied that even if it were caused by the accident the driver was uninsured or underinsured; and denied the insureds' allegation of compliance with all policy conditions precedent to UM damages from State Farm. The insureds did not file a Reply to the Answer seeking to avoid the UM policy limits.

As a result of these pleadings, coverage under the UM policy up to its stated limits of $100,000 was an admitted fact. From the presuit declaration by State Farm under oath in response to the inquiry of these insureds, the amount of the limits on the UM coverage provided by policy number 6182-373-59F was known to both parties, and neither one had placed this amount in issue by the pleadings. Instead the disputed facts for trial were whether the insured's injury or condition resulted from the accident, the amount of the damages attributable to the accident, the extent and amount of any covered damages uninsured or underinsured, and whether insureds had complied with the policy's UM conditions. There was no basis for either party to offer evidence at trial as to the limits of UM coverage.

The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict finding damages resulting from the accident in the combined amount of $269,105 (which included $25,000 on the consortium claim). Seven days after the verdict, State Farm filed a motion for a remittitur to reduce damages to the UM limits in the policy—namely $100,000. Among other things, the motion said: "Further the contractual limits for the insurance policy that was in effect, again as evidenced by the Affidavit ..., was one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)." In apparent anticipation that the insureds might argue that State Farm was guilty of bad faith in its handling of the UM claim in suit and that such bad faith would authorize a judgment in excess of UM policy limits, State Farm's motion asserted that the insureds had failed to give any notice of an intent to claim bad faith damages, as required by statute.⁵ State Farm also filed a companion motion for a new trial on various grounds. On the day after these motions were filed, the court entered judgment on the jury verdict without reducing the amount to UM policy limits. Three days later, the court entered an order directing the insureds to file a response to the motion for remittitur within 15 days and, at the same time, a separate order denying State Farm's motion for a new trial.

Within ten days after the entry of judgment, State Farm filed a post-judgment motion to amend the judgment to UM policy limits. This post-judgment motion repeated the arguments made in its earlier post-verdict motion to limit damages to policy limits. In a later response to the motion for remittitur, the insureds argued that damages greater than the UM policy limits of $100,000 were available because of the excess policy mentioned in the presuit letter from State Farm and because of a bad faith claim that was not premature. Two days after the response by the insureds, the court entered an order denying the motion for remittitur but said nothing about State Farm's post-judgment motion to amend the final judgment.

Although State Farm later filed a motion for rehearing of the order on its motion for remittitur and other motions related to a stay pending review and supersedeas, the court took no action on State Farm's post-judgment motion to amend judgment until nearly three months later, when it finally entered an order denying the motion "as moot." State Farm timely filed this appeal within 30 days after this last order. We have jurisdiction and reject the insureds' arguments to the contrary, as well as the companion argument that State Farm has not preserved the issue, without further comment.

The issue is whether there was any basis for a judgment in this case against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance in excess of the UM policy limits of $100,000. Two strong principles inform our decision. First, estoppel may not be used affirmatively against an insurer to create or extend coverage otherwise lacking in the policy. Doe v. Allstate Ins. Co., 653 So.2d 371, 374 (Fla.1995); AIU Ins. Co. v. Block...