COLLECTION BUREAU OF ORLANDO, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, 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.
The court held that the insurance policy provided coverage for claims brought under Florida Statutes Section 559.72, which prohibits certain debtor harassment practices.
Collection Bureau of Orlando, Inc. (insured) sought coverage from Continental Casualty Company for a lawsuit alleging violation of Florida Statutes Se…
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 Invasion Of Privacy cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment holding that the defendant Continental Casualty Company was not obligated to furnish coverage to its insured, the plaintiff, Collection Bureau of Orlando, Inc., in a separate action wherein the plaintiff was sued for damages under Florida Statutes, Section 559.72. Section 559.72 prohibits certain debtor harassment practices. Continental’s policy provided coverage when its insured was sued for any violation of an individual’s right of privacy.
In enacting Florida Statutes, Sections 559.72 and 559.77, the legislature has provided a cause of action in debtor harassment situations not previously passed on or specifically recognized by the courts of this state. But this cause of action has been generally identified under the common law and in other jurisdictions as falling within the broad tort classification of invasion of privacy. Santiesteban v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 306 F. 2d 9 (5th Cir. 1962). Housh v. Peth, 165 Ohio St. 35, 133 N.E. 2d 340 (1956). With the passage of the statutes in question the legislature has further defined and protected an individual’s right of privacy in this state.
Under the law of contracts insurance policies are to be liberally construed in favor of the insured. 18 Fla.Jur. Insurance, § 407. In this case we hold that the terms of the insurance policy does provide the insured with coverage for actions brought against it under the provisions of Florida Statutes, Sections 559.72 and 559.77. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions that judgment be entered in favor of the appellant, Collection Bureau of Orlando, Inc. ALDERMAN and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laughlin v. Household Bank, Ltd., 969 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…provision that is more protective of the debtor prevails). The Florida Legislature, in enacting the FCCPA, has “further defined and protected an individual’s right of privacy in this state.” Collection Bureau of Orlando v. Continental Casualty Co., 342 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); See also Terri Jayne Salt, Note, Fair Debt Collection Practices: Analysis of Florida and Federal Law, 30 U. Fla. L.Rev. 892, 905 (1978). [*512] Collecting consumer debt, no person shall: (8) Use profane, obscene, vulgar, o…
-
KAC 2021-1 LLC v. Mary T. Matuszak Irrevocable Tr. & Lorrain B. Terrazas (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)…annot be assigned. See McNulty, 221 So. 2d at 210. To the extent KAC alleges the Trust invaded Previte’s privacy, that is also considered a personal, unassignable tort claim. See Collection Bureau of 4 Orlando, Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 342 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (“In enacting [the FCCPA], the legislature has provided a cause of action in debtor harassment situations . . . generally identified under the common law and in other jurisdictions as falling within the broad tort classi…
Authorities Cited
- Santiesteban v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 306 F.2d 9 (5th Cir. 1962)