LESTER WALKER, APPELLANT (COUNTERPLAINTIFF),
v.
DONALD HILLIARD, D/B/A TRENTON FARM EQUIPMENT, APPELLEE (COUNTERDEFENDANT)
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.
The court held that insurance proceeds paid to a buyer for a damaged or stolen item should not reduce the damages awarded against a seller for breach of warranty of title.
Walker purchased a tractor from Hilliard, which was later damaged and found to be stolen. Walker received insurance proceeds for the damage and sued H…
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 Collateral Source Rule (Implied) cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Hilliard sold Walker a used tractor. The tractor was damaged by a flood and Walker returned it to Hilliard for repairs. While in Hilliard’s possession, it was determined that the tractor was stolen. The rightful owner claimed it. The insurance company of Walker paid him for the damage to the tractor. Walker sued Hilliard for breach of warranty of title. The trial court awarded damages to Walker, but reduced the damages by the amount of the insurance proceeds paid to Walker. Walker appeals from the final judgment entered by the trial court. He contends that the trial court erred in reducing the damages awarded to him in his contract action by the amount of insurance proceeds paid to him. We agree.
In tort actions, it is well settled that the recovery of damages by the owner of property from the party who damaged the property may not be reduced by the amount of insurance proceeds received by the owner from his insurance company. 81 A.L.R. 320. Although the courts are somewhat divided on whether this rule applies in contract actions (81 A.L.R. 320), we are of the opinion that it should be applied. To hold otherwise would permit a wrongdoer to benefit from a policy of insurance when there is no privity between him and the insurance company, and the policy was written for the benefit of the insured, not for the wrongdoer. If there must be a windfall, it is more just that the injured party profit, rather than the wrongdoer be relieved of full responsibility for his wrongdoing.
In Allstate Mortgage Corporation v. Alpha Motors, Inc., 294 So. 2d 100 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1974), a mortgage foreclosure action, the court stated that the receipt of insurance money by a lessor for loss of its leased personal property by fire would not reduce the lessee’s obligation under the lease.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOYER, C. J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Respess v. Fairley Kave Carter, 585 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…on the face amount of the UM coverage, to surrender its subrogation rights and the opportunity to pursue and settle a claim of speculative value. There is no reason that ingenuity should accrue to the benefit of the tortfeasors. Walker v. Hilliard, 329 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The principle behind the collateral source rule is that it is better for the wronged plaintiff to receive a potential windfall than for a tortfeasor to be relieved of responsibility for the wrong. We also doubt that the plaintif…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ashe, 50 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…“It has been held that the collateral source rule does not apply to pure breach of contract cases.” There, the appellee cited in support of its collateral source argument Bangert v. Beeler, 470 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and Walker v. Hilliard, 329 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), both of which were also cited in Hamilton when acknowledging our contrary precedent. The Third District found these cases were distinguishable, explaining: Bangert and Walker, also relied on by [appellee] are equally unconvinci…
-
Calloway v. Dania JAI Alai Palace, Inc., 560 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…s v. Thomas, 150 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). The principle behind the rule is that it is better for the wronged plaintiff to receive a potential windfall than for the tort-feasor to be relieved of responsibility for the wrong. Walker v. Hilliard, 329 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Moreover, the collateral source rule is not a rule of evidence that can be waived but a substantive rule of law that cannot be avoided even if it is the injured party who introduces the evidence of collateral compensation. Parke…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allstate Mortg. Corp. of Fla. v. Alpha Motors, Inc., 294 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)