SCOTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, 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.
Scott Technologies (formerly Figgie International) appeals from summary judgment denying coverage under an excess insurance policy for a $22 million settlement in a product liability case. The court affirmed, holding that Scott's egregious discovery violations and resulting default judgment on liability breached its duty to cooperate with the insurer, forfeiting coverage rights.
The court held that Scott breached its duty of cooperation as a matter of law by its intentional discovery fraud that caused the default judgment on liability, and by breaching this duty, Scott forfeited any right to coverage under its policy with Reliance.
[1] A defendant's willful and blatant discovery violations, including intentional destruction of relevant documents, can result in the striking of pleadings and entry of a de…
[2] A defendant's intentional discovery fraud that causes the entry of a default judgment on liability constitutes a breach of the duty of cooperation as a matter of law.
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“[I]n the more than thirty-five years that the Court has been on the bench and engaged in the practice of law, the facts of the present case present the most egregious case of discovery abuse this court has ever seen.”
Establishes the severity of Scott's discovery violations, which the appellate court relied upon to affirm the coverage denial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDennis Alderman sued Scott Technologies for injuries from a defective scaffold that left him a quadriplegic. Scott committed willful and blatant disco…
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 Denial Of Insurance Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant in a product liability action appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of its excess insurance carrier. We affirm.
Dennis Alderman sued Figgie International, now known as Scott Technologies, Inc., after a fall from a scaffold manufactured by Figgie rendered him a quadriplegic. Because of willful and blatant discovery violations by Figgie, including the intentional destruction of relevant documents, the trial court struck Figgie’s pleadings and entered a default judgment on liability. This court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s order as its opinion. See Figgie Int’l, Inc. v. Alderman, 698 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). On the eve of the damages trial, the parties settled for twenty-two million dollars.
Reliance then sued Figgie, seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to provide coverage for that settlement; Figgie counterclaimed for bad faith denial of its insurance claim. The case was heard by Judge Goldman, the same judge who had entered the default judgment. The court granted the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Reliance had no duty to provide coverage for the multimillion-dollar settlement, and dismissed Figgie’s counterclaim.
In affirming the trial court’s final order of summary judgment on the issue of coverage, we need look no further than Judge Goldman’s meticulous recitation of Figgie’s many willful discovery violations, and his observation that “[I]n the more than thirty-five years that the Court has been on the bench and engaged in the practice of law, the facts of the present case present the most egregious case of discovery abuse this court has ever seen.” Figgie Int’l, 698 So. 2d 563, 564. When Figgie’s intentional discovery fraud caused the entry of the default judgment on liability, Figgie breached its duty of cooperation as a matter of law. See Ramos v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 336 So. 2d 71 (Fla.1976); Rustia v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 440 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).1 In breaching its duty to cooperate, Figgie forfeited any right to coverage that may have existed under its policy with Reliance.
AFFIRMED.
. There is no indication anywhere in the record that Reliance played any role in the discovery abuses, or was even aware of them until well after the default judgment was entered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ramos v. Nw. Mut. Ins. Co. & Lawrence J. Williams, 336 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1976)
- Figgie Int'l, Inc. v. Alderman, 698 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Rustia v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 440 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)