LAZARA CRUZ, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 appellate court affirmed a summary judgment for an insurance company, holding that the insurer's settlement offer, though ultimately $25 short of the jury's valuation, was not so unreasonable as to constitute bad faith.
No, the court held that an offer falling only $25 short of the jury's determined value, which was significantly less than the claimed amount, was not unreasonable as a matter of law and therefore did not support a claim for bad faith.
[1] An insurer's settlement conduct is governed by a standard of reasonableness.
[2] A settlement offer that falls only $25 short of a jury's determination of value, where the jury's value is significantly less than the claimed amount, is not, as a matter…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The legal standard governing an insurer’s settlement conduct is one of reasonableness.”
Establishes the legal principle applied to the insurer's actions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLazara Cruz sued her insurer, American United Insurance Company, for bad faith in settling her automobile property damage claim. She argued the initia…
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 Bad Faith Refusal To Settle cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Lazara Cruz appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of her automobile insurer. Cruz filed an action against her insurer, American United Insurance Company, alleging bad faith in refusing to settle an automobile property damage claim. Her primary contention was that the insurer furnished her with an unreasonably low estimate for the repair or replacement of her automobile. She also alleged that as a result of the unreasonable estimate, and a delay between the opening offer of $3,000 and the final $3,500 offer, she incurred additional costs including long-distance telephone calls to the insurer, storage costs, and loss of use damages.
The parties attempted, unsuccessfully, to reach an agreement as to the value of the automobile at the time of the accident. Competent evidence was presented by the insurer in support of its contention that its $3,000 first offer was reasonable for the appellant’s high-mileage vehicle.
Nevertheless, the value of the car on the date of the accident was determined by the jury to be $3,775. That figure was only $25 more than the insurer’s last offer of $3,500, after subtracting the $250 deductible. On the basis of the jury verdict, and asserting that Cruz failed to present any other facts establishing bad faith, American United moved for summary judgment on the bad faith claim.
The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
We affirm. The legal standard governing an insurer’s settlement conduct is one of reasonableness.
D. Wall, Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith § 9.03 (1985). An offer to settle a $5,669 property damage claim for $3,500, which offer falls only $25 short of a jury’s determination fixing the value at $1,900 less than the claim, is not, as a matter of law, so unreasonable as to support a claim for bad faith failure to settle. See Clauss v. Fortune Ins. Co., 523 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (judgment for insurer was proper where there were insufficient allegations of unreasonable and bad faith conduct on the part of the insurer).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Infinity Ins. Co. v. Berges, 806 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…proval of a settlement on behalf of his minor daughter at the time he made his “offer.” Since Infinity had no reasonable opportunity to settle the claim, Infinity could not have acted in bad faith as a matter of law. See Cruz v. Am. United Ins. Co., 580 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We reverse the jury verdict because the trial court should have granted summary judgment on this issue. The facts are not in dispute as to Taylor’s status as of May 2, 1990, the day that Taylor delivered his “offer” to Infinity.…
-
Am. Builders Ins. Co. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2021)…Thus, no such evidence or argument shall be permitted. The Court, in its prior Order, found that the “relevant inquiry is whether [Defendant] acted reasonably in evaluating and attempting to settle.” Id. at 13 (citing Cruz v. Am. United Ins. Co., 580 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)). Notwithstanding this ruling, the jury will have to consider the totality of the circumstances in this case, and the jury should hear all of the relevant evidence related to Plaintiff’s sole count of bad faith and determin…
Authorities Cited
- Clauss v. Fortune Ins. Co., 523 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)