CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN PATRICK MCBRIDE, 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 Fourth District affirmed a judgment for the appellee on the basis of equitable estoppel, holding that an insurance company may be estopped from denying coverage when the evidence supports such a finding, while certifying to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether equitable estoppel may be used to establish insurance coverage.
An insurance company may be estopped from denying coverage when the evidence is sufficient for a jury to find estoppel.
[1] An insurance company may be estopped from denying coverage when evidence is sufficient for a jury to find that the insurer's conduct prevented the insured from obtaining…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrown Life Insurance Company appealed a judgment in favor of Steven Patrick McBride, where the jury found that the insurance company was estopped from…
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 Insurance Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm upon the authority of Kramer v. United Services Automobile Association, 436 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) and Peninsular Life Insurance Co. v. Wade, 425 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In so doing we acknowledge that we are approving appellee’s recovery on the legal and factual basis that the appellant insurance company was estopped to deny coverage to appellee. We hold that the company may be estopped from denying coverage and that the evidence in this case was sufficient for the jury to find an estoppel, as it did. We have considered and reject each of the other issues raised on appeal, and affirm the judgment of the trial court in its entirety-
Notwithstanding an affirmance we recognize the existence of some confusion over the law in this state on the issue of whether insurance coverage may be established by estoppel, especially in light of this court’s prior opinion refusing to recognize an estoppel in Six L’s Packing Co. v. Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 268 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), cert. discharged, 276 So. 2d 37 (Fla.1973). While we believe Six L’s and this case, as well as those cited above, are factually distinguishable, we hereby certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance in order to resolve the continuing debate over this issue:
MAY THE THEORY OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL BE UTILIZED TO PREVENT AN INSURANCE COMPANY FROM DENYING COVERAGE?
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur. HERSEY, C.J., concurs specially with opinion.
HERSEY, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the conclusions of the majority opinion that, (1) on the facts of this case the insurance company is estopped to deny coverage to the handicapped defendants and (2) that this case is distinguishable from the Six L’s Packing Co. case, supra. I also believe, however, that there is substantial competent evidence on this record to support a finding of an oral agreement, binding on the insurance company, to waive the exclusions which otherwise might have precluded coverage.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crown Life Ins. Co. v. McBRIDE, 517 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1987)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review Crown Life Insurance Co. v. McBride, 472 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), in which the district court certified the following as being a question of great public importance: May the theory of equitable estoppel be utilized to prevent an insurance company from denying coverage? Id. at 871. We have ju…
-
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Am. Fire & Indem. Co., 511 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…reau Mut. Ins. Co., 268 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), cert. discharged, decision adopted, 276 So. 2d 37 (Fla.1973); 30 Fla.Jur.2d Insurance § 670. . See 11 A.L.R.3d (1967) at 1146; 43 Am.Jur.2d § 465 at 528. . See Crown Life Ins. Co. v. McBride, 472 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). . See Seabaugh v. Sisk, 413 S.W. 2d 602, 606 (Mo.1967) ("To deny coverage is to take the position that for some reason or other the policy does not encompass the particular accident.”); Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Woods, 59 Was…
-
Executive Health Servs., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 498 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…e of the policy and before the incident giving rise to a claim under the policy can estop the insurer from denying coverage. See Peninsular Life Insurance Co. v. Wade, 425 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also Crown Life Insurance Co. v. McBride, 472 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Kramer v. United Services Auto [*1270] mobile Association, 436 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). In this case we cannot conclude from our examination of the record that the alleged statement about coverage could not have been a r…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- SIX L'S Packing Co., Inc. v. Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 268 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- SIX L'S Packing Co., Inc. v. Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 276 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1973)
- Peninsular Life Ins. Co. v. Wade, 425 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Kramer v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 436 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)