**Author's Note: If you have reached this blog through a list that carries advertising, your computer may or may not be put at risk either through the list or through the advertising. I do not accept or authorize any commercial advertising of any kind on any list or post. Placing commercial advertisements with or near any of my web log posts is prohibited. Further, I do not recommend any products or services advertised with or near any of my posts or any list of my posts.**
... No Such Opinions Allowed by Federal Court in Bad Faith Case Under Florida Law.
A lawyer-Expert Witness was proffered to testify to what the Federal Court listed as six (6) Opinions on issues in a relatively new decision in Download Kearney v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. (M.D. Fla. Opinion Filed November 5, 2009), also published as Kearney v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 2009 WL 3712343 *3 (M.D. Fla. November 5, 2009)(subscription required to access Westlaw). The Policyholder-Plaintiff in that Bad Faith Case under Florida Law filed a motion to exclude these Opinions as "legal conclusions" and because allegedly "they are based on an incorrect understanding of the law," in pertinent part.
The lawyer-Expert was allowed to testify to two (2) of his 6 Opinions. For ease of reference, the four Opinions identified by the Court as impermissible legal conclusions in that Insurer Bad Faith Case are italicized in the following list taken straight from the Court's Opinion:
(1) that [the Excess UM Carrier-Defendant] did not violate Florida Statute § 624.155 [Florida's so-called Bad Faith Statute];
(2) that an insurer does not have a duty to pay a claim until there has been a determination [by the insurance company] of coverage and damages;
(3) that [the Policyholder-Plaintiff's] amended complaint should be dismissed;
(4) that [the Policyholder-Plaintiff's] Civil Remedy Notice was premature;
(5) that [the Excess UM Carrier-Defendant] acted in good faith when it paid the $5 million policy limits; and
(6) that [the Carrier-Defendant's] failure to pay the policy limits within sixty days after [the Policyholder-Plaintiff] filed the Civil Remedy Notice was not bad faith and did not violate Florida Statute § 624.155.
Kearney v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 2009 WL 3712343 *3 (M.D. Fla. November 5, 2009). [Italics added as noted; 16-pitch material added to reflect the Court's ruling to edit and thus render this particular Opinion permissible and not a legal conclusion.]
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments