GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREA FAYE TAPLIS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ERICK MAURICE TAPLIS, DECEASED; JAMES TAPLIS AND CASSIE TAPLIS, HIS WIFE, 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.
General Accident Insurance Company appeals the trial court's decision that the insured's release of a tortfeasor without the insurer's consent did not void uninsured motorist coverage. The court held that the insured failed to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the insurer required to enforce coverage despite the policy violation.
The trial court erred in finding that the insured overcome the presumption of prejudice to the insurer. The insured's settlement without General Accident's consent violated the policy and voided coverage because the insured failed to demonstrate lack of prejudice, particularly given the tortfeasor's young age, earning capacity, and probability of future assets subject to subrogation rights.
[1] An insured's settlement with a tortfeasor without the consent of their uninsured motorists insurance carrier voids coverage unless the insured can conclusively overcome t…
[2] A mere denial of prejudice is insufficient to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the insurer when the insured settles with a tortfeasor without consent.
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“Under Florida law, violation of a settlement provision voids coverage unless the insured can conclusively overcome the presumption of prejudice to the insurer.”
Establishes the legal standard that applies when an insured settles a claim without the insurer's consent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Taplises' grandson, a household member, was fatally injured in an automobile accident caused by Kent Teal's negligence. The Taplises had uninsured…
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 Presumption Of Prejudice To Insurer cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The issue in this case is whether the release of a tortfeasor by the claimants, James and Cassie Taplis, operated to discharge the liability of their uninsured motorists insurance carrier. The Taplises’ grandson, who was determined to be a member of their household, was fatally injured in an automobile accident as a result of the negligence of one Kent Teal. At the time, the Taplises had U.M. coverage with General Accident, covering three vehicles, with limits of $10,-000/$20,000 on each. Without the consent of General Accident, the Taplises executed a release to Teal in exchange for a $50,000 settlement. The General Accident policy provided:
If we make a payment under this policy and the person to or for whom payment was made has a right to recover damages from another we shall be subrogat-ed to that right. That person shall do: (1) whatever is necessary to enable us to exercise our rights; (2) nothing after loss to prejudice them.
* * * * *
We do not provide uninsured motorists coverage for bodily injury sustained by any person: ... (2) if that person or the legal representative settles the bodily injury claim without our consent.
Under Florida law, violation of a settlement provision voids coverage unless the insured can conclusively overcome the presumption of prejudice to the insurer. See American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sinz, 487 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Gould v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 443 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 451 So. 2d 848 (Fla.1984); Tucker v. Seward, 400 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Earnest, 395 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Kaplan v. Phoenix of Hartford Ins. Co., 215 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 220 So. 2d 365 (Fla.1969); McInnis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 208 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Bass v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 199 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967) cert. dismissed 206 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla.1968). A mere denial of prejudice is insufficient. See Gould, supra.
In Tucker, supra, we reversed a summary judgment for the carrier in a similar situation where the facts reflected that the tortfeasor was a 99-year-old nursing home resident with no future earning capacity and no assets. Under those extreme circumstances, we held that the plaintiff had met the difficult burden of showing no prejudice to the insurer, and that the breach of the contract was only nominal.
The uncontroverted evidence in this case shows the tortfeasor is a healthy 23-year-old man presently earning upwards of $32,-000 per year, and with unrestricted future earning ability. Although he has no assets presently, there is every probability that he would have assets in the future subject to the subrogation rights of the carrier. We therefore hold that the trial court erred in determining that the appellees had met their burden of demonstrating a lack of prejudice to the insurer. REVERSED.
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watherwax v. Allstate Ins. Co., 538 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…trial court erred in granting Allstate’s motion for summary judgment and we, accordingly, reverse and remand for further proceedings. Holl; Kaplan; Gorman v. Albertson’s, Inc., 519 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); General Accident Ins. Co. v. Taplis, 493 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Tucker v. Seward, 400 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). REVERSED AND REMANDED. CAMPBELL, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . Since we find that the two affidavits executed by the tortfeasor were sufficient to create a material i…
-
Argiro v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 510 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…h a third party tortfeasor in violation of a non-settlement provision in a contract for insurance, the insurer is presumed to have been prejudiced, and the burden falls upon the insured to prove otherwise. General Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Taplis, 493 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sinz, 487 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Gould v. Prudential [*636] Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 443 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So. 2d 848 (Fla.1984); Lopez v. Fidelity & C…
-
NEW Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Knight, 506 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ll approve a proposed settlement. The violation of a settlement provision in the policy voids coverage unless the insured can conclusively overcome the presumption of prejudice to his insurer. General Accident Insurance Company of America v. Taplis, 493 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Gould v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 443 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So. 2d 848 (Fla.1984); Tucker v. Seward, 400 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). A mere denial of prejudice is insuffici…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bass v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. OF Hartford, 199 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Carlton Lee Fields v. State, 215 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- McINNIS v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 208 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- United Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. Canam Sys., Inc., 400 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. OF Hartford v. Dessie E. Gresham, 206 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1968)
- Se. Fid. Ins. Co. v. Earnest, 395 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Gould v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 443 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Am. Fire & Cas. Co. & W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Bradford Sinz, 487 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Coleman v. Henry W. Brown & Sons, Inc., 220 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1969)
- Phoenix OF Hartford Ins. Co. v. Gale Rubin Kaplan, 220 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1969)