ALBERT E. SALTMARSH AND JANE E. SALTMARSH, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DETROIT AUTOMOBILE INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE, 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.
Plaintiffs appealed an order striking their prayers for punitive damages and emotional distress from a complaint against their auto insurer for unlawfully cancelling their policy and wrongfully denying insurance benefits. The court affirmed, holding that under Florida law, neither punitive damages nor mental distress damages are recoverable in a first-party insurance contract breach absent the type of deliberate dishonest dealing that would justify punitive damages.
No. Under Florida law, punitive damages are recoverable only where the insurer's conduct involves deliberate, overt and dishonest dealing. Mental anguish damages absent physical injury are similarly available only where the defendant acted with such malice as to justify punitive damages. Since the Saltmarshes cannot recover punitive damages, they are precluded from recovering damages for mental anguish.
[1] A cause of action for punitive damages arising from the breach of a first-party insurance contract requires proof of deliberate, overt, and dishonest dealings by the insu…
[2] Damages for mental anguish arising from the breach of a first-party insurance contract are recoverable only when punitive damages are justified, absent a physical injury.
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“to be entitled thereto, the case must be of the class involving deliberate, overt and dishonest dealing on the part of the insurer”
Establishes the standard for recovering punitive damages in insurance cases under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Saltmarshes purchased automobile liability insurance from Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange in May 1971, with automatic yearly renewal. …
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 Emotional Distress Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal an order granting defendant insurer’s motion to strike the prayers for punitive damages and emotional distress contained in their complaint.
Plaintiffs, Albert & Jane Saltmarsh, purchased automobile liability insurance from the defendant, Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, on May 10, 1971. The policy was automatically renewed from year to year. At the end of May 1973 plaintiffs received from Detroit a notice retroactively cancelling their insurance policy as of May 10,1973. On June 2 Jane was involved in a serious automobile accident. She reported the accident to Detroit and applied for benefits under the PIP and collision provisions of the policy. Detroit denied coverage and plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking the benefits due under their policy. In addition, the complaint contained prayers for damages for mental pain and suffering and punitive damages arising out of Detroit’s conduct in cancelling the policy and willfully and wantonly denying benefits to plaintiffs without regard for their rights. Detroit admitted in its answer that the cancellation was unlawful and that full benefits were due and payable, but denied liability for mental pain and suffering. Thereafter, Detroit filed a motion to strike the prayers for mental suffering and punitive damages. After hearing argument, the trial judge found as a matter of law that a cause of action does not exist under Florida law for a claim for punitive damages, emotional distress and/or mental pain and anguish arising out of the manner in which a first party insurance contract is breached in the absence of a battery. The motion was granted and plaintiffs appeal.
Butchikas v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 343 So. 2d 816 (Fla.1976) is dispositive of the issues raised in this appeal.
As to the claim for punitive damages, Butchikas holds that to be entitled thereto, the case must be of the class involving deliberate, overt and dishonest dealing on the part of the insurer. The instant case does not fall within this category and, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to recover punitive damages.
With respect to plaintiffs’ prayer for damages for mental distress, the rule in Florida has been that, absent a physical injury, a plaintiff can recover damages for mental anguish only where it is shown the defendant acted with such malice that punitive damages would be justified. Crane v. Loftin, 70 So. 2d 574 (Fla.1954); Butchikas, supra. Plaintiffs cannot recover punitive damages and, therefore, they are precluded from prevailing on their claim for damages for mental anguish.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lewis v. Barnett Guthartz, 428 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1982)…olas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co., 339 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1976); American International Land Corp. v. Hanna, 323 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1975); Masciarelli v. Maco Supply Corp., 224 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1969); Saltmarsh v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 344 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Country Club of Miami Corp. v. McDaniel, 310 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Associated Heavy Equipment Schools, Inc. v. Masiello, 219 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). We reaffirm the rule and its underlying policy: an unwillingness…
-
Dunn v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 631 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…where the insurer’s conduct is so gross and extreme as to amount to an independent tort, and to merit the award of punitive damages. Butchikas v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 348 So. 2d 816 (Fla.1976); Saltmarsh v. Detroit Auto Inter-Insurance Exchange, 344 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The allegations in Dunn’s complaint in this case do not rise to this level of malfeasance on the part of National. However, if discovery had been permitted below, appropriate amendments might have been possible. The statutory ca…1 / 2
-
Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Romer, 432 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…ved that the company engaged in deliberate, overt and dishonest dealing, the insured was entitled to punitive damages. Butchi- [*70] kas v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 343 So. 2d 816 (Fla.1976); Saltmarsh v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 344 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). As I view it, this is a relatively simple case. The plaintiff cannot recover in tort because he has alleged only a wrongful refusal to settle his claim. While this may constitute a breach of contract, it does not amount to a tor…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crane v. Loftin, 70 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1954)
- Gus George Butchikas v. Travelers Indem. Co., 343 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1976)