MARIE SARKO, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
FIREMAN'S INSURANCE CO. OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the common law bad faith claim and that section 624.155 does not preempt this common law action.
Plaintiffs sued defendant insurer for bad faith in settling an insurance policy. The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendant on the com…
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 Insurer'S Duty Of Good Faith cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant on the plaintiffs common law claim of bad faith in settling an insurance policy. We do this because there are genuine issues of material fact which preclude entry of judgment as a matter of law. See Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Mathis, 511 So. 2d 601, 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found a breach of the insurer’s duty of good faith).
We affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs common law action. We disagree that section 624.155 preempted the common law action for bad faith in settling an insurance policy claim. We are of the opinion that the legislature did not intend to limit the common law remedy in any way, but only intended to expand it to cover an insurer’s bad faith refusal to settle an insured’s first party claim.
REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
HERSEY, C.J., LETTS, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H. (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malone v. City OF Satellite Beach, 653 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…f the hearing or a statement of the proceedings pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4) to clarify what actually occurred during the hearing, and therefore, it has not met its burden as movant on cross-appeal. See Schulz v. Remy, 573 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (finding that cross-appellant carries the burden to provide the reviewing court with a record which demonstrates that the issue has been properly preserved for appeal by way of a timely objection); cf. Wright v. Wright, 431…
Authorities Cited
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Benny Mathis, 511 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)