THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CURRY-THOMAS HARDWARE, INC., A CORPORATION, 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.
Travelers Indemnity Company appealed a jury verdict awarding Curry-Thomas Hardware damages for wrongful denial of insurance coverage and defense in a prior lawsuit. The appellate court reduced the damages award and attorneys' fees, finding the jury verdict unsupported by competent evidence.
The evidence supports damages of $2,631.50 (the actual attorneys' fees of $2,500 and costs of $131.50) but not the full jury verdict of $5,244.10. The appellate court reduced the appellees' attorneys' fees from $1,500 to $750, finding the higher amount excessive under the evidence.
[1] An insurer's denial of coverage and refusal to defend an insured in a prior action may give rise to a cause of action for damages.
[2] A jury verdict and judgment may be reversed in its entirety if the evidence does not support it, even if parts of the claim are supported by evidence.
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“The evidence clearly shows that appellee, had been billed for and had paid its attorney in defending it in the prior suit $2500.00 attorneys' fees and $131.50 costs.”
Establishes the only competent evidence of damages actually incurred by the appellee.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCurry-Thomas Hardware was a defendant in a prior lawsuit and prevailed. Travelers Indemnity Company denied coverage under an insurance policy and refu…
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 Duty To Defend cases and more on FLexlaw
JOHNSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment, based on a jury verdict awarding the appellee $5,244,10 damages plus attorneys’ fees of $1500.00 and plus costs in the amount of $128.50.
The cause of action in this case arose out of another case in which the appellee was a defendant and which resulted in a verdict for the appellee. The appellee in stituted this case against the appellant herein claiming damages because the appellant herein had denied coverage under an insurance policy issued to the appellee by the appellant and therefore had refused to defend appellee in the prior action in which appellee was defendant.
The evidence clearly shows that appellee, had been billed for and had paid its attorney in defending it in the prior suit $2500.00 attorneys’ fees and $131.50 costs. We think this was the only competent evidence produced at trial, and the appellant herein has admitted that the amount of attorneys’ fees was reasonable and had no quarrel with the amount. The trial court had, .by partial summary judgment, found the liability was properly imposed upon appellant.
We have reviewed the record and all cases cited by counsel for all parties, and we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the evidence does not support the verdict and judgment thereon in its entirety but does support a finding, as admitted to counsel of appellant, in the amount of $2631.50. Also, we find the amount of attorneys fee of $1500.00 excessive under the evidence of this case and hold that an attorneys fee of $750.00 was in order. Therefore, the judgment is reversed with directions that a judgment be entered in favor of the appellee for the amount of $2631.50 plus interest and for appellee’s attorneys fee of $750.00.
We deny any attorneys’ fee in this appeal.
RAWLS, C. J., concurs.
SPECTOR, J., dissents.
SPECTOR, Judge
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I would affirm the judgment reviewed herein.