Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York
Decision Date | 12 July 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 39912,39912 |
Citation | 250 So.2d 259 |
Parties | Marvin F. THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a corporation, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
David R. Lewis, of Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Bennett, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Bruce S. Bullock, of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for respondent.
By petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, rendered on June 30, 1970, reported at 237 So.2d 247, affirming the dismissal of petitioner's complaint for failure to state a cause of action. We have jurisdiction by virtue of conflict with our decision in Beta Eta House Corporation, Inc. of Tallahassee v. Gregory, 237 So.2d 163 (Fla.1970).
Petitioner sued Deloris Haynes (not a party to this action), for injuries received in an automobile accident and obtained a judgment against Mrs. Haynes in the amount of $89,500. Mrs. Haynes' insurer, respondent herein, paid petitioner $25,000 (the policy limit of Mrs. Haynes' policy with respondent) toward satisfaction of the judgment.
Subsequently, petitioner brought suit against respondent directly for the $65,000 balance of the judgment, alleging that respondent was guilty of bad faith in failing to settle the claim originally within the limits of the policy. The following particulars were alleged: that plaintiff's claim was clearly meritorious, as shown by the fact that a directed verdict was entered in plaintiff's favor during the trial; that plaintiff's damages far exceeded the policy limits; that insurer had failed to properly investigate the extent of plaintiff's damages; that the insurer rejected the advice of its own attorney and/or agents to settle; that the insurer failed to inform the insured of compromise offers; that the insurer failed to inform the insured of the posibilities or probabilities of an excess verdict; that the insurer was gambling with a far greater portion of the insured's financial risk than its own; that the insurer failed to inform its own attorney of the limits of the policy so as to permit him to properly recommend a proper settlement or properly advise the insured of her own financial risk; and that the insurer failed to follow or seek legal advice in the settlement of the lawsuit from Florida attorneys experienced in the practice of law in the Duval County Courts.
There was no assignment by the insured to petitioner of any possible claims against the insurer.
On these facts, the trial court dismissed petitioner's complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. The First District Court affirmed, expressing the opinion that the third-party beneficiary theory enunciated by this Court in Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So.2d 713 (Fla.1969) was of no comfort to petitioner. The court said, inter alia:
We disagree and reverse.
It is established in Florida that an insured has the right to sue and recover damages against his own insurer for an excess judgment on the basis of fraud or bad faith in the conduct of the insured's defense by the insurer. American Fire and Casualty Company v. Davis, 146 So.2d 615 (Fla.App.1st, 1962).
It is also established in this state that a third party beneficiary who is not a formal party to a contract may sue for damages sustained as the result of the acts of one of the parties to the contract. See Weimar v. Yacht Club Point Estate, Inc., 223 So.2d 100 (Fla.App.4th, 1969); Morse v. Hendry Corporation, 200 So.2d 816 (Fla.App.2d, 1967); DiCamillo v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 122 So.2d 499 (Fla.App.2d, 1960) ( ); Flintkote Company v. Brewer Co. of Florida, 221 So.2d 784 (Fla.App.3rd, 1969) (materialman); Mugge v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 52 Fla. 371, 42 So. 81 (1906); Woodbury v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 57 Fla. 243, 249, 49 So. 556 (1909); Auto Mut. Indemnity Co. v. Shaw, 134 Fla. 815, 184 So. 852 (1938).
The last-named of these cases, Auto Mut. Indemnity v. Shaw, is particularly relevant to the case sub judice. In that case plaintiff-judgment creditor brought suit against tortfeasor's insurer to recover an excess judgment against tortfeasor. Although this Court held the evidence insufficient to sustain the verdict against the insurer, we also said that under the particular wording of the insurance policy, 1 the judgment creditor had a right of action against the insurer for the full amount of his judgment including any excess over the policy limits, where the insurer indulged in conduct amounting to fraud or bad faith. Our language in that case was significant:
'The authorities are in harmony with the rule that one for whose benefit a contract is made, although not a party to the agreement and not furnishing the consideration therefor, may maintain an action against the promisor. In other words, a third person can enforce a contract entered into between others for his benefit. See 81 A.L.R. 1279
2
Related to the third-party beneficiary concept is the rule that every action may be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. See Rule 1.210(a), RCP, 30 F.S.A., formerly Section 4201, Comp.Gen.Laws 1927 and Fla.Stat. § 45.01. This rule has been commented on extensively in Florida case law. In the early case of American Surety Co. of New York v Smith, 100 Fla. 1012, 130 So. 440 (1930), we find the following language:
'Even independently of statutory influence, the rule now prevails in many jurisdictions that one for whose direct benefit a contract was made, and who is a primary party in interest, may enforce the same * * * This view now obtains in perhaps the majority of jurisdictions, in some instances through statutory influence and in some instances without it * * *
'In this state the doctrine is affected by statute. Section 4201, Comp.Gen.Laws 1927, provides, amongst other things, that
This language was followed and further explained in Marianna Lime Products Co. v. McKay, 109 Fla. 275, 147 So. 264 (1933), and Bruce Const. Corporation v. Federal Realty Corp., 104 Fla. 93, 139 So. 209 (1932) and has apparently evolved into or merged with the third-party beneficiary doctrine in DiCamillo v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Supra, and Flinkote Co. v. Brewer Co. of Florida, Supra. At any rate, the rule in Florida now is that the third party beneficiary of a contract is the real party in interest and may prosecute an action on it in his own name as the real party in interest. First National Bank of St. Augustine v. Perkins, 81 Fla. 341, 87 So. 912 (1921).
Essential to the right of a third party beneficiary of a contract to maintain an action for its breach is the clear intent and purpose of the contract to directly and substantially benefit the third party. See Woodbury v. Tampa Waterworks Co., Supra; First National Bank of St. Augustine v. Perkins, Supra; and East Coast Stores, Inc. v. Cuthbert, 101 Fla. 25, 133 So. 863 (1931). 3
On this point, the reasoning of Wigginton, J., concurring specially in Canal Insurance Company of Greenville, S.C. v. Sturgis, Supra, is especially cogent:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Keeley
...436 F.Supp. 1119 (E.D.Mich.1977); Hernandez v. Great American Ins. Co. of NY, 464 S.W.2d 91 (Texas, 1971); Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of N.Y., 250 So.2d 259 (Fla,1971); Bennett v. Conrady, 180 Kan. 485, 305 P.2d 823 (1957); Foundation Reserve Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 388 F.2d 528 (CA 1......
-
Giuffre v. Andrew
...jurisdiction").57 Soncoast Cmty. Church of Boca Raton, Inc. , 981 So 2d at 655 (citations omitted).58 Thompson v. Com. Union Ins. Co. of New York , 250 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla. 1971) (emphasis added); accord , e.g., Reconco v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co. , 312 So 3d 914, 917 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 20......
-
Rutter v. King
...at large and, accordingly, any third-party injured person may sue without the policyholder's consent. Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York, 250 So.2d 259 (Fla.1971). 6 In garnishment actions the minority position is represented by three states, each holding that the action rest......
-
Kranzush v. Badger State Mut. Cas. Co.
...the third-party claimant to recover directly against the insured upon a third-party beneficiary theory, Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York, 250 So.2d 259 (Fla.1971), or by garnishment of the insurer's debt to the insured, Rutter v. King, 57 Mich.App. 152, 226 N.W.2d 79 (1974)......
-
Contract cases
...1. Mendez v. Hampton Court Nursing Ctr., LLC , 203 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 2016). 2. Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York , 250 So.2d 259, 262 (Fla. 1971). 3. Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1969). 4. Auto Mut. Indem., Co. v. Shaw, 184 So. 852, 856 (Fla. 1938). 5. Marian......
-
Recovery of mental distress damages in bad faith claims in Florida.
...limits. See, e.g., Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v. Shaw, 134 Fla. 815, 184 So. 852 (1938); Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York, 250 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1971); Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980). However, with respect to first party claims, Florida courts ......
-
Avoiding "bad faith" in settlement: what are the developments?
...See Van Dyke v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 448 N.E.2d 357, 361-62 (Mass. 1983). (26.) Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 250 So.2d 259, 260 (Fla. (27.) See generally Wall, Supra note 2, at [subsections] 5.07 and 5.44. (28.) Id. at 3.27 (29.) E.g., OK Lumber Co. v. Providence W......