WILLIAM STETZ AND MARIE STETZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Stetzes appealed a summary judgment order denying punitive damages in their breach of contract action against an insurer. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that absent a willful and independent tort separate from the breach of contract itself, punitive damages are not available, even where mental distress is alleged.
The court held that the Stetzes failed to establish a willful and independent tort separate from breach of contract, and therefore are not entitled to punitive damages. Under Florida law, punitive damages against an insurer require proof of deliberate, overt, and dishonest dealing, which was not present here.
[1] In Florida, a cause of action for punitive damages or emotional distress arising from the breach of a first-party insurance contract is not recognized in the absence of a…
[2] To recover punitive damages in an insurance contract dispute, the insurer's conduct must involve deliberate, overt, and dishonest dealings.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The appellants have failed to establish that the insurer was guilty of a willful and independent tort, separate from breach of contract, so as to permit an award of punitive damages.”
Establishes the core legal standard that punitive damages require proof of an independent tort beyond mere breach of contract.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Stetzes filed a complaint alleging breach of contract by American Casualty Company on a disability policy. They sought both compensatory and punit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mental Anguish Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants Stetz, plaintiffs in the trial court, seek review of the order granting the defendant/insurance company’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages. The gravamen of the complaint is the alleged breach of contract by the insurer on a disability policy; appellants assert that in addition to compensatory damages, they are entitled to punitive damages based upon allegations of intentional infliction of mental distress by the agents of the insurer in their attempts to settle the claim with Mr. Stetz and their methods of investigation regarding his malady.
After study of the briefs, careful review of the entire record and having heard oral argument of counsel for the respective parties, we affirm the trial court order. The appellants have failed to establish that the insurer was guilty of a willful and independent tort, separate from breach of contract, so as to permit an award of punitive damages. See, McDonald v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company, 276 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) and Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Walter I. Smith, 345 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The rule in Florida has been that, absent a physical injury, a plaintiff can recover damages for mental anguish only where it has been shown that the defendant acted with such malice that punitive damages would be justified. Crane v. Loftin, 70 So. 2d 574 (Fla.1954) and Saltmarsh v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 344 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Also see, Butchikas v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 343 So. 2d 816 (Fla.1976) which holds that in order to be entitled to punitive damages against an insurer, the case must be of the class involving deliberate, overt and dishonest dealing on the part of the insurer. The instant case clearly does not fall within this category.
The trial court correctly granted the insurance company’s motion on the issue of punitive damages.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marvin M. Shuster, M.D. v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist. Physicians' Prof'l Liab. Ins. Tr., 570 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ation which would amount to an independent tort. The Butchikas court rejected the insured’s suggestion that he should be entitled to punitive damages based on a theory of breach of fiduciary duty. See also Stetz v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 368 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The fiduciary relation theory was expressed in Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), in a case regarding an insurer’s failure to pay uninsured motorist coverage prior to an arbitration award in favor of…
-
Campbell v. The Prudential Ins. Co., 480 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…Pest Control v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1982); Campbell v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 306 So. 2d 525 (Fla.1974); Food Fair, Inc. v. Anderson, 382 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Stetz v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 368 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert, denied, 378 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1979); MacDonald v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 276 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). The trial court erred in denying the insured an award of reasonable attorney’s fees under section 627.428(1), Fl…
-
Swerhun v. Gen. Motors Corp., 812 F. Supp. 1218 (M.D. Fla. 1993)…); American Federation of Government Employees v. DeGrio, 454 So.2d 632, 637-39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Peacock v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 432 So.2d 142, 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Stetz v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa., 368 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 349 (Fla.1979). In essence, the rule requires that a plaintiff either prove a physical impact upon his or her person causing the emotional distress or mental anguish or that the defendant’s tortious…
Authorities Cited
- Crane v. Loftin, 70 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1954)
- Gus George Butchikas v. Travelers Indem. Co., 343 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1976)
- MacDONALD v. The Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 276 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- AETNA Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 345 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Saltmarsh v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Insurance Exch., 344 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)