HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
BENNY MATHIS, 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.
Hartford Insurance appealed a jury verdict in favor of an insured on a bad faith insurance claim, challenging both compensatory and punitive damages awards. The court affirmed the compensatory damages but reversed the punitive damages award, finding insufficient evidence of the egregious conduct required by Florida law.
The court affirmed that Hartford breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, supporting the compensatory damages award. However, the court reversed the punitive damages award, finding insufficient evidence of the continued course of dishonesty or gross, flagrant, wanton, and reckless conduct required by Florida law for exemplary damages.
[1] An insurer breaches its duty of good faith when it fails to communicate appropriately with its insured, lacks candor, or demonstrates a lack of complete integrity in its…
[2] An insurer's failure to convey a policy limits demand to its insured, despite knowledge of a severe injury and near absolute liability, can support a jury's finding of ba…
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“it was clear to the carrier, from its own intra-departmental reports, from the day after the accident (a) this was a horrendous injury including brain damage to a minor, (b) it was either an absolute or nearly absolute liability case, and (c) the policy limits were $25,000.”
Establishes Hartford had immediate knowledge of the severity of the claim and clear liability from its own records
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA minor suffered catastrophic injuries including brain damage in an accident covered by Hartford's $25,000 policy. Hartford's internal reports immedia…
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 Duty Of Good Faith cases and more on FLexlaw
FEDER, RICHARD Y., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal following a verdict in favor of an insured on a bad faith claim wherein the jury assessed compensatory damages of $2,941,698.47 and punitive damages of $1,500,000. Although a full recitation of the facts of this seven day trial is not necessary, certain facts are appropriate.
First of all, it was clear to the carrier, from its own intra-departmental reports, from the day after the accident (a) this was a horrendous injury including brain damage to a minor, (b) it was either an absolute or nearly absolute liability case, and (c) the policy limits were $25,000. Six weeks post-accident the victim's attorney orally requested policy limits of $25,-000 and $1,000 medical payments for a complete release of its insured. This information was not conveyed to the insured.
No response was given for almost a month, though the adjuster spoke with the victim’s mother and verified the minor was still in the hospital awaiting further surgery, had lost 50% of his vision, and had extensive medical and hospital bills. The victim’s attorney then sent a written formal demand for the limits and extended only ten days within which the carrier could tender $25,000. Although this court has indicated its unhappiness with “ten day demand” letters (see DeLaune v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 314 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)), under these facts we find no error justifying reversal since there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found a breach of the carrier’s duty of good faith even predating the written demand for policy limits.
In addition, there was evidence of the carrier's failure to communicate appropriately with its insured as well as a lack of candor and complete integrity in that which it did communicate, all of which could also justify the jury’s finding of bad faith.
However, we do find error with the award of punitive damages. The supreme court has consistently and continuously set extremely strict standards for the imposition of exemplary damages. Carroway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1959); White Construction Company v. DuPont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1984); Como Oil Company v. O’Laughlin, 466 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1985). Herein, there is insufficient evidence of a continued course of dishonesty or conduct of such a gross and flagrant nature showing wantonness and recklessness to the welfare of its insured which would justify the imposition of punitive damages. We have considered all other matters raised by appellant and have rejected them.
ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunn v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 631 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…., 760 F. 2d 1520 (11th Cir.1985). In general, dishonesty, misrepresentations, and fraudulent conduct must be alleged and established. See Butchikas v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 343 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1976); Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Mathis, 511 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1275 (Fla.1987); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Douville, 510 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 519 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1987); Smith v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Co., 435 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied,…1 / 3
-
Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2004)…in that resolution, while acknowledging the good faith of the arguments made on both sides. One of the cases presenting facts very similar to the case at issue is cited and discussed in the majority opinion. See Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Mathis, 511 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). A review of that case may be helpful in understanding today’s decision. In Mathis, as here, the insured was involved in a very serious accident involving the clear liability of the insured and very substantial damages. The insu…1 / 2
-
Robinson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 583 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…0 to settle, and instead employed counsel to defend itself. Courts have found bad faith under analogous circumstances. See Powell v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 584 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Mathis, 511 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1275 (Fla.1987). In this case, a jury could well find that, even taking the coverage dispute into account, a reasonably prudent person faced with paying the entire judgment likely to be rendered in the underly…
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
- Royal Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1959)
- White Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1984)
- Como OIL Co., Inc. v. Celestine O'Loughlin, 466 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1985)
- DeLAUNE v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 314 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)