FRANCIS COMPANION AND ELEANOR COMPANION, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL 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 Companions appealed a summary judgment dismissing their uninsured motorist claim against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The court affirmed the dismissal because the Companions failed to notify Liberty of a lawsuit against a known tortfeasor and settled with that tortfeasor without Liberty's knowledge or consent, violating the policy requirements.
The court held that the Companions' failure to notify Liberty Mutual of the lawsuit and settlement barred their uninsured motorist claim, and Liberty suffered potential prejudice because the Companions waived the remaining $40,000 in available policy limits under Cummins' insurance.
[1] An uninsured motorist carrier is not liable for damages when the insureds settle with a tortfeasor and their insurance company without the carrier's knowledge or consent.
[2] An insured's failure to notify an uninsured motorist carrier of a lawsuit against a tortfeasor may bar recovery from the carrier.
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“The court found their suit was barred because they failed to advise Liberty about a lawsuit they had filed against Cummins, a known tortfeasor involved in an accident in which they were allegedly injured, and because they settled with the tortfeasor and his insurance company without Liberty's knowledge or consent.”
Establishes the primary basis for the summary judgment ruling—breach of the duty to notify the insurer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Companions were allegedly injured in an accident involving Cummins, a known tortfeasor. Without notifying Liberty Mutual, their uninsured motorist…
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 Prejudice To Insurer cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
The Companions, husband and wife, appeal from a final summary judgment entered in favor of their uninsured motorist carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. The court found their suit was barred because they failed to advise Liberty about a lawsuit they had filed against Cummins, a known tortfeasor involved in an accident in which they were allegedly injured, and because they settled with the tortfeasor and his insurance company without Liberty’s knowledge or consent. We affirm. See GEICO v. Sutton, 400 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1981); § 627.727(6), Fla. Stat. (1989).
There does not appear to be any material disputed issues of fact concerning Liberty’s actions or inaction in this matter, or whether Liberty was prejudiced by the settlement. In defending the lawsuit brought against it by the Companions, Liberty admitted the existence of uninsured liability coverage, but denied the injuries for which they claimed damages that had been caused by the accident involving Cummins. There is some evidence in the file that at least some of the injuries for which damages were being sought by the Companions were caused by prior accidents and mishaps. This defense was not specious nor made in bad faith, and was one Liberty was entitled to raise under the law and the facts as presented in this record. That distinguishes this ease from Wegener v. International Bankers Insurance Co., 494 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 504 So. 2d 767 (Fla.1987) and Infante v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co., 364 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
The Companions argue that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Liberty was prejudiced by their failure to notify it of the settlement. They contend Cummins was and is judgment proof, based on an affidavit of their private investigator. The evidence showed that Cummins has a negligible amount of assets which could be levied upon. However, the Companions settled with Cummins for sums ($5,000.00 each) far less than Cummins’ liability policy limits, which was $25,000.00/$50,000.00. Based on these facts, Liberty did suffer potential prejudice, to the extent the Companions waived the remaining $40,000 in policy limits available under Cummins’ insurance policy.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and ANTOON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Aristonico Infante v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 364 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Wegener v. Int'l Bankers Ins. Co., 494 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Sutton, 400 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)