STANLEY COIRA, M.D., AND KARL M. DAVIDSON, M.D., APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., FLORIDA PHYSICIANS INSURANCE RECIPROCAL AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
Two physicians challenged summary judgment dismissing their civil action against their medical malpractice insurers for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court affirmed, holding that Florida law did not provide a private right of action under the insurance statute and that no material factual disputes existed regarding the insurers' alleged bad faith.
The court held that (1) Part VII of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes did not afford an individual insured a private civil right of action against an insurer; (2) although an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inheres in insurance contracts, no material factual disputes existed on this claim because the insurer had no duty to renew Dr. Coira's expired policy and Dr. Davidson's insurer had a contractual right to cancel upon proper notice.
[1] A statute in effect at the time an alleged cause of action arose did not afford an individual insured a private, civil right of action against his insurer.
[2] An implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inheres in medical malpractice insurance contracts.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Part VII of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), in effect at the time the alleged cause of action arose, did not afford an individual insured a private, civil right of action against his insurer”
Establishes the primary basis for affirming summary judgment—no statutory private right of action exists
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Coira's medical malpractice insurance policy expired, and the insurer did not renew it. Dr. Davidson's policy was cancelled by the insurer. Both p…
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 Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The summary final judgment in favor of the appellees and the underlying judgment on the pleadings are affirmed for the following reasons.
First, we agree with the trial court that Part VII of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), in effect at the time the alleged cause of action arose, did not afford an individual insured a private, civil right of action against his insurer, § 626.9641(2), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1976); Cycle Dealers Insurance, Inc. v. Bankers Insurance Company, 394 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Second, although we recognize that an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inheres in medical malpractice insurance contracts, Spindle v. Traveler’s Insurance Companies, 66 Cal.App.3d 951, 136 Cal.Rptr. 404 (1977), as it does in contracts in general, see Fernandez v. Vasquez, 397 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), we hold that there are no material issues of fact concerning the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendant insurer breached such a covenant. This is so because: (a) with respect to Dr. Coirá, his original policy expired and the insurer had neither a duty to renew the policy, nor an obligation to issue a new one, see Prescott v. Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Ass’n, 133 Fla. 510, 183 So. 311 (1938); and (b) with respect to Dr. David son, any bad faith motives for cancelling his policy are immaterial where it is not alleged that these motives conflict with the public policy of the state, compare L’Orange v. Medical Protective Co., 394 F. 2d 57 (6th Cir.1968), and where the contract of insurance provides that either party may cancel it upon furnishing proper notice. Reliance Insurance Co. v. Echols, 602 S.W. 2d 883 (Mo.App.1980) (and authorities cited therein at 887-888).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert Alan Kast, M.D. v. Eliot Berg, M.D., 533 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Coira v. Florida Medical Ass’n Inc., 429 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).…
-
Lidsky v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 604 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…to renew an automobile insurance policy, there is no general duty to issue a new policy at the end of the policy period. See Prescott v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass ’n, 133 Fla. 510, 183 So. 311 (1938); Coira v. Florida Medical Ass’n, Inc., 429 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). See generally J.C. Gautreau, Annotation, Insured’s Right of Action for Arbitrary Nonrenewal of Policy, 37 A.L.R.4th 856 (1985 & Supp.1991); Martin J. McMahon, Annotation, State Regulation of Insurer’s Nonacceptance, Cancellation,…
-
Soule v. Sec. Conn. Life Ins. Co., 654 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…section 626.951 et seq., Florida Statutes; however, none of these theories provide a basis for recovery given the facts and circumstances of this case. Crown Life Ins. Co. v. McBride, 517 So. 2d 660 (Fla.1987); Coira v. Florida Medical Ass'n, Inc., 429 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Unijax, Inc. v. Factory Ins. Assn, 328 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1976). . Section 36 provides in pertinent part as follows: A participating Employer may discontinue coverage with respect to h…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Prescott v. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n, 133 Fla. 510 (Fla. 1938)
- Fernandez v. Vazquez, 397 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- L'Orange v. The Med. Protective Co., 394 F.2d 57 (6th Cir. 1968)
- Castle v. State, 394 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)