FLORIDA PHYSICIANS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
G. WILLIAM LAZENBY, M.D., P.A., 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.
Florida Physicians Insurance Company issued a claims-made liability policy covering Dr. Lazenby and his professional association, but limited the association's coverage to negligence claims involving Dr. Lazenby individually. When Dr. Lazenby was dismissed from a malpractice suit, the insurer refused to continue defending the association. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the insurer's duty to defend ended once the complaint was amended to remove allegations against Dr. Lazenby.
No. The insurer's duty to defend is governed by the allegations in the complaint. Once the complaint was amended to delete allegations of negligence against Dr. Lazenby individually and he was no longer a defendant, the insurer had no further obligation to defend the professional association because the claim fell outside the scope of the policy coverage.
[1] An insurer's duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the complaint.
[2] An insurer's duty to defend ends when the complaint is amended to allege facts that fall outside the scope of the policy coverage.
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“A liability insurer's duty to defend is governed by the allegations in the complaint.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that the insurer's obligation to defend is determined by what the complaint actually alleges, not the underlying facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Physicians issued a liability policy to Dr. G. William Lazenby covering both him individually and his professional association (P.A.), but lim…
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 Amendment Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
The trial court awarded a money judgment to G. William Lazenby, M.D., P.A., because of Florida Physicians Insurance Company’s refusal to defend the professional association after one of its physicians was dismissed from a malpractice suit. Florida Physicians appeals. We reverse.
Florida Physicians issued a claims-made liability policy with G. William Lazenby, M.D. as the only named insured. The policy provided individual professional liability coverage for Dr. Lazenby. It also provided coverage for his professional association, G. William Lazenby, M.D., P.A.; however, that coverage was specifically limited to “damages resulting from the providing or withholding of professional services by [Dr. Lazenby] individually.” The policy specifically provided that it did not protect the professional association “for acts of any other members of the ... professional association.”
Beverly Levine filed a medical malpractice suit alleging negligence against the P.A., Dr. Lazenby, and Dr. David S. Roth-berg, an associate physician in the P.A. defended by another insurer carrier. Florida Physicians furnished legal counsel for Dr. Lazenby and the P.A. During the course of the litigation, counsel for Ms. Levine and counsel furnished by Florida Physicians entered into a joint stipulation dismissing Dr. Lazenby individually from the action. The court entered an order dismissing Dr. Lazenby from the suit with prejudice, and the style of the case was amended to delete him as a defendant.
At that point, Florida Physicians notified Dr. Lazenby that the company would not provide any further defense or coverage to the P.A. The reason given was that the P.A. had coverage only to the extent that the complaint alleged negligence against Dr. Lazenby individually, and since he had been dismissed from the action, the company concluded that its obligation had been fulfilled.
Thereafter, the P.A. retained counsel to represent it during the remainder of the malpractice suit, thereby incurring attorneys fees and other costs. The P.A. filed a declaratory action against Florida Physicians seeking reimbursement for those fees and costs. The trial court held that Florida Physicians improperly refused to defend the P.A. after Dr. Lazenby was dismissed individually, and awarded the P.A. $28,139.69, the amount agreed upon as damages in the event it prevailed. We think the trial court erred in holding that the policy required Florida Physicians to defend the professional association after Dr. Lazenby was no longer a defendant.
A liability insurer’s duty to defend is governed by the allegations in the complaint. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1977); Ins. Co. of North America v. Querns, 562 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Where, as here, the complaint is amended to allege facts that bring the action outside the scope of the policy coverage, the insurer’s duty to defend ends. Barron Oil Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 470 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Hartford Ins. Co. of the Southeast v. City of Sanibel, 500 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
As noted, the policy issued to Dr. Lazen-by only covered the P.A. for “damages resulting from the providing or withholding of professional services by [Dr. Lazenby] individually.” The policy specifically stated that the association “is not protected for acts of any other members of the ... professional association.”
Florida Physicians properly defended the P.A. based on the allegations of Ms. Levine’s original complaint, which included allegations of negligence against Dr. Laz-enby. However, once it was amended to delete any allegation of negligence on the part of Dr. Lazenby individually and he was no longer a defendant, Florida Physicians had no further obligation to defend the P.A. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment in favor of G. William Lazenby, M.D., P.A. and remand with directions to enter judgment in favor of Florida Physicians Insurance Company.
DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MCO Env't, Inc. v. Agric. Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. & United Cap. Ins. Co., 689 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…the damages resulted from MCO's defective workmanship. We make no determination on this issue, but note that upon remand, the trial court may find that the insurer’s duty to defend did terminate at this point. Florida Physicians Ins. Co. v. Lazenby, 576 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).…
-
Fam. Care Ctr., P.A. v. Truck Ins. Exch., 875 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…iguity. We do not agree with the ambiguity argument, as it is clear that, when all of the provisions are read together, Family Care is an additional insured only for medical treatment rendered by Dr. Dean. Fla. Physicians Ins. Co. v. Lazenby, P.A., 576 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Caduceus Self Ins. Fund v. S. Fla. Emergency Physicians, 436 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Even if there were an ambiguity between the endorsement and the body of the policy, the endorsement, which is clear, controls. Fireman’…
-
Barton-Malow Co. v. Grunau Co., 835 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…quiring the insurer to both defend and pay damages and that these provisions are generally held to be severable. See, e.g., St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Tingley Sys. Inc., 722 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Fla. Physicians Ins. Co. v. Lazenby, 576 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). However, this principle does not necessarily follow in a nonin-surance context. This is particularly true when the main purpose of the contract at issue is not indemnification because, in that case, the indemnity provisions must…
Authorities Cited
- The Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1977)
- Baron OIL Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 470 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Querns, 562 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Hartford Ins. Co. of the Se. v. City OF Sanibel, 500 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)