PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ANZUALDA BROTHERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, JESUS E. MARINO CASTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF ANZUALDA BROTHERS, APPELLEES/CROSS-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.
Progressive Express Insurance Company appealed a trial court's declaratory judgment finding insurance coverage by estoppel for an accident involving an uninsured vehicle. The appellate court reversed, holding that the insured failed to prove all three elements of the coverage by estoppel claim, particularly the element of prejudice.
The court held that Anzualda Brothers failed to prove all three elements of its coverage by estoppel claim, particularly the element of prejudice. Therefore, the insurer, Progressive, was not obligated to provide coverage for the accident involving the unlisted vehicle.
[1] To establish insurance coverage by estoppel, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant insurance company made a representation of material fact, the plaintiff reasonably…
[2] Failure to prove prejudice is fatal to a claim for insurance coverage by estoppel.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In an insurance coverage by estoppel claim, the plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant company made a representation of material fact; (2) the plaintiff reasonably relied on that representation of material fact; and (3) the plaintiff was prejudiced by its reliance.”
Establishes the three-element test required to prove coverage by estoppel in Florida insurance law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnzualda Brothers, Inc. was involved in a fatal accident while driving a vehicle that was not listed on its Progressive Express insurance policy. The …
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 Declaratory Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, challenges the trial court’s entry of a declaratory judgment determining that there was insurance coverage in favor of appellee Anzualda Brothers, Inc. by operation of estoppel. Appellant argues it should not have to provide coverage for appellee’s accident, which resulted in the fatality of one victim and the injury of another victim, because the vehicle appel-lee had been driving was not a listed vehicle on the insurance policy, and because appellee failed to prove all three elements of its coverage by estoppel claim.
Appellee cross-appeals, alleging the trial court erred in its refusal to enforce a settlement agreement and consent judgment that were agreed to by appellant and entered in the separate, underlying tort case between appellee and the victims.
We agree with appellant that appellee failed to prove all three elements of its coverage by estoppel claim. In an insurance coverage by estoppel claim, the plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant company made a representation of material fact; (2) the plaintiff reasonably relied on that representation of material fact; and (3) the plaintiff was prejudiced by its reliance. Bishop v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 154 So.3d 467, 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Because appellee failed to sufficiently prove prejudice, we reverse, vacate the trial court’s final judgment in favor of ap-pellee, and remand for the trial court to enter final judgment in favor of appellant.
Because we remand for the trial court to enter final judgment in favor of appellant, appellee’s cross-appeal requesting damages from appellant in the amount outlined in the settlement agreement is moot.
MAKAR and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bishop v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 154 So. 3d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)