CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY A FOREIGN CORPORATION, A/S/O HANK FREID, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIE STOYANOVICH, 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.
Chubb Indemnity's subrogation claims for negligence and breach of bailment arising from an engagement ring are not barred by Florida's anti-heartbalm statute, which applies only to specific causes of action for breach of promise to marry, not to property-related claims.
Section 771.01, Florida Statutes, bars only actions for alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction, or breach of contract to marry, and does not bar claims for negligence and breach of bailment regarding gifts exchanged between parties.
[1] Section 771.01, Florida Statutes, which bars actions for alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction, and breach of contract to marry, does not bar claims…
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“only bars actions for damages for alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction, or breach of contract to marry, and does not affect the rights of parties relative to gifts passing between them”
The court cited Gill v. Shively to clarify the scope of section 771.01, Florida Statutes, explaining that the statute does not bar property-related claims.
Hank Freid's fiancée Marie Stoyanovich broke off their engagement and claimed not to know the whereabouts of the engagement ring. Chubb Indemnity paid…
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 Breach Of Bailment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company (“Chubb Indemnity”) appeals the dismissal of its claims of (1) negligence and (2) breach of bailment in favor of appellee Marie Stoyanovich, the defendant below. Ms. Stoyanovich, in breaking off a wedding engagement, claimed she did not know the whereabouts of the engagement ring when Hank Freid, the insured and disappointed suitor, demanded its return. As a result, Chubb Indemnity paid Mr. Freid $206,000.00 under his insurance policy. In this subrogation action, Chubb Indemnity sought reimbursement from Ms. Stoyanovich, claiming she breached a duty of care in preventing loss or damage to the ring while it was in her possession. The trial court dismissed both counts, holding that any causes of action for damages arising out of an oral contract to marry are barred in Florida pursuant to Gill v. Shively, 320 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
We reverse, finding that the trial court misread Gill, which expressly stated that section 771.01, Florida Statutes, “only bars actions for damages for alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction, or breach of contract to marry, and does not affect the rights of parties relative to gifts passing between them.” Id. at 417 (emphasis added). Accordingly, section 771.01, Florida Statutes (2009), does not bar Chubb Indemnity’s claims for negligence and breach of bailment.
Reversed and remanded.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and SINGHAL, RAAG, Associate Judge, concur.