OAK CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY 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.
Oak Casualty's failure to respond within sixty days to a notice of violation created a presumption of bad faith under Imhof, and the trial court properly instructed the jury; the court also reversed the denial of additur for prejudgment interest.
An insurer's failure to respond within sixty days to a notice of violation creates a presumption of bad faith that shifts the burden to the insurer to justify non-response.
[1] An insurer's failure to respond within sixty days to a notice of violation creates a presumption of bad faith that shifts the burden to the insurer to demonstrate justifi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“An insurer's failure to respond within the sixty-day period will create a presumption of bad faith sufficient to shift the burden to the insurer to show why it did not respond.”
Imhof standard for insurer response requirements
Oak Casualty failed to respond within sixty days to a notice of violation in an underlying third-party bad faith case brought by Travelers Indemnity C…
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 Burden Shifting cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the underlying third-party bad faith case, the defendant, Oak Casualty Insurance Company [Oak Casualty] appeals from an adverse final judgment. We affirm finding that the trial court properly gave a jury instruction pursuant to Imhof v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 643 So. 2d 617 (Fla.1994), because Oak Casualty failed to respond within sixty days to the notice of violation sued upon. Imhof 643 So. 2d at 619 (“An insurer’s failure to respond within the sixty-day period will create a presumption of bad faith sufficient to shift the burden to the insurer to show why it did not respond.”); see also, Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1282 (Fla.2000) (“[T]he sixty-day window is designed to encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation .... To cure an alleged violation and to avoid civil action, an insurer must pay the claim (sometimes in excess of policy limits in the third-party context) before the sixty days expire.”).
Further, regarding the cross-appeal brought by the plaintiff, Travelers Indemnity Company [Travelers], Oak Casualty confesses error in the trial court’s denial of Traveler’s motion for additur. Oak Casualty concedes that the award of damages improperly omitted prejudgment interest.
Accordingly, we affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand for entry of a corrected judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Safeco Ins. Co. OF Ill. v. Fridman, 117 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…k the truth about the extent of Fridman’s injuries. The trial judge’s decision should be affirmed so Fridman can pursue his bad faith action in the manner directed by the courts. . Likewise, in Oak Casualty Insurance Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 778 So. 2d 483, 483-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), the court wrote: In the underlying third-party bad faith case, the defendant, Oak Casualty Insurance Company [Oak Casualty] appeals from an adverse final judgment. We affirm finding that the trial court properly gave a j…
Authorities Cited
- Talat Enters., Inc. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000)
- Imhof v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 643 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1994)