PATRICIA ANN MILLS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, CARL B. SCHWAIT, AND DELL GRAHAM, P.A., APPELLEES
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.
An insured appealed summary judgment entered in favor of State Farm in a bad faith insurance claim. The court reversed, finding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether State Farm failed to settle within policy limits, properly advise of excess verdict risk, and inform the insured of remedial steps to minimize judgment exposure.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether State Farm failed to act in good faith. Questions of bad faith in claim handling must ordinarily be determined by a jury based on the totality of the circumstances in each case.
[1] Summary judgment must be reversed if material facts are at issue and the slightest doubt exists.
[2] An insurer is obligated to make litigation and settlement decisions in good faith, with the insured's best interest in mind, when the insured has surrendered all control…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When an insured has surrendered to the insurer all control over a claim brought against her, the insurer is obligated to make litigation and settlement decisions in good faith, with the insured's best interest in mind.”
Establishes the fundamental duty owed by insurers to insureds in claims handling
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia Mills was the insured under a State Farm policy when a claim was brought against her. State Farm handled the claim but did not settle it with…
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 Insurer'S Duty Of Good Faith cases and more on FLexlaw
The insured appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of State Farm Insurance Company (“State Farm”) in a bad faith action. We reverse.
In the proceedings below, the insured alleged that State Farm acted in bad faith in: 1) failing to settle a claim within policy limits; 2) failing to properly advise her of the possibility of an excess verdict; and 3) failing to inform her of remedial steps available to minimize her risk of a substantial money judgment against her.
The standard of review of a summary judgment is de novo. See O’Brien v. State Farm, 999 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Walsingham v. Dockery, 671 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In reviewing a summary judgment, this Court must consider all record evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. If material facts are at issue and the slightest doubt exists, summary judgment must be reversed. See Hancock v. Dep’t of Corrections, 585 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
When an insured has surrendered to the insurer all control over a claim brought against her, the insurer is obligated to make litigation and settlement decisions in good faith, with the insured’s best interest in mind. See Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So.2d 783 (Fla.1980). Accordingly, an insurer is required to settle a claim where a reasonably prudent person, faced with the prospect of paying the total recovery amount, would accept settlement. Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So.2d 665 (Fla.2004).
The question of whether a liability insurer has acted in bad faith in handling a claim against the insured is determined upon the totality of the circumstances, with each case determined on its own unique facts. The question of failure to act in good faith is ordinarily for the jury. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez; Contreras v. U.S. Security Ins. Co., 927 So.2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Where material issues of fact which might support a jury finding of bad faith are in dispute, summary judgment is improper. See Berges, 896 So.2d at 680-81.
In entering summary judgment for State Farm, the trial court concluded as a matter of law that State Farm could not have done more towards settling the claim against Ms. Mills and that State Farm adequately advised her of the possibility of an excess verdict, and of steps she could have taken to minimize the risk of a substantial money judgment. Given the unique factual circumstances of this case, this was error.
Considering all relevant evidence in a light most favorable to the appellant, as we must, we are persuaded that genuine dis*97putes of material facts were present and precluded summary judgment. We therefore reverse the summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, 118 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ry judgment, [the court] must consider all record evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. If material facts are at issue and the slightest doubt exists, summary judgment must be reversed.” Mills v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 So. 3d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). “ ‘To obtain a final summary judgment, the moving party must conclusively demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Flanigan’s Enter…
-
Ramsey v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 124 So. 3d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…court granted Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in its favor. This appeal follows. II. Analysis We review the trial court’s ruling on the summary judgment motion de novo. Mills v. State Farm, Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 So. 3d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). “[Summary judgment should be entered only when there is no genuine issue of any material fact, and even the slightest doubt as to the existence of such a question [*417] precludes summary judgment.” Laidlaw v. Krystal Co., 5…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Figler Fam. Chiropractic, P.A., 189 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…is denied. CIKLIN, C.J., concurs. KLINGENSMITH, J., dissents with opinion. . The decisions State Farm relies upon are Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, 118 So. 3d 904, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Mills v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 So. 3d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)), and Baxter v. Northrup, 128 So. 3d 908, 909 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). . On the other hand, if State Farm, after the motion for summary judgment was filed, gave general notice that "all affidavits previously filed in the court f…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boston OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980)
- THE Florida BAR v. Guerra, 896 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2004)
- Hancock v. Dep't OF Corr., 585 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Contreras v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 927 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Major Ronald Walsingham v. Kriegel, 671 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- O'Brien v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 999 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)