NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY F. KING, 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 court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a requested jury instruction on legal causation and in striking the defense of comparative bad faith.
Plaintiff King was injured and offered to settle with the tortfeasor's insurer, Nationwide, for policy limits, which Nationwide refused. A jury awarde…
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 Assignment Of Causes Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, defendant below, appeals a second amended final judgment upon a jury verdict for plaintiff Mary King in a bad faith insurance suit. We affirm.
Mary King was injured by a truck driven by Judith McLendon. King offered to settle with McLendon’s insurer, Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, for the policy limit of $50,000. Nationwide did not settle. As a result, King instituted a personal injury action against McLendon. The jury returned a verdict in favor of King for $700,000, and the trial court entered judgment against McLendon for $560,000 due to King’s 20% comparative negligence.
McLendon subsequently assigned to King her cause of action against Nationwide for bad faith and/or breach of contract in failing to settle the claim against her. King then filed an action for bad faith in refusing to settle, which action is the subject of this appeal. Nationwide answered, asserting King’s comparative bad faith as a defense. The trial court struck this defense. The cause proceeded to trial.
At trial, the court declined to give Nationwide’s requested jury instruction on legal causation. Instead, the court gave Florida Standard Jury Instruction MI 3.1 regarding “Insurer’s Bad Faith.” The jury found that Nationwide acted in bad faith in failing to settle the claim and returned a verdict in favor of King. The trial court entered final judgment in accordance with the verdict.
We find no error in the trial court’s refusal to give Nationwide’s requested jury instruction on legal causation. The Florida standard jury instruction on bad faith adequately covered the law. Furthermore, the trial court did not err in striking Nationwide’s comparative bad faith defense. We decline to create a new affirmative defense of comparative bad faith. Accordingly, the judgment below in favor of appellee is affirmed.
DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., and WESSEL, JOHN D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Builders Ins. Co. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2021)…and comparative negligence], which the parties agree is controlling, no Court has ever permitted these defenses. Courts in Florida and around the nation have rejected these defenses.); see also Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. King, 568 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (“Trial court did not err in striking Nationwide’s comparative bad faith defense. We decline to create a new affirmative defense of comparative bad faith.”). Second, under Local Rule 7.1(c), a motion may be granted by default…