Subscribe to this blog's feed

Categories

Archives

About

Blog powered by Typepad

Google

  • Google
    Google

    WWW
    insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com

Disclaimer

  • REMINDER: THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP. ALWAYS CONSULT THE CASES AND LAWS OF EACH PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND AN ATTORNEY IN AND FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND ITS LAWS, WHENEVER YOU TRY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE ANY LEGAL QUESTION.
    The information provided on this site is informational, only. We cannot represent, guarantee or warrant that the information contained in this site is appropriate for the usage of any particular reader. We are independent of cross links and do not warrant their accuracy or applicability. We are located in Florida and comply with all ethical rules of the Florida Bar. Some States may require the wording "This is an advertisement" or other words or information of this nature. Reading email or Comments, or replying to email or Comments, or accepting telephone calls or returning telephone calls shall not be considered legal advice. We require that all agreements for professional services be in writing and signed by Mr. Wall, the Firm and the client, whether for Legal Services, Consulting Services, or Expert Witness.

« Not "Bad Faith" Setup Defense, But Unreasonable Demand Guts Case. | Main | Insurance Coverage Claims Discovery Affects Pending Bad Faith Claims, Too. »

July 22, 2010

"Court II" Damages, Unspecified, Support First-Party Bad Faith Statutory Claim.

   Part of the holding in the following First-Party Statutory Bad Faith Claim, concerning the sufficiency of the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation in that case, was addressed in a post on Insurance Claims and Issues on Wednesday, July 21, 2010.  This post addresses another holding in the same Federal Court Order in that case, concerning Damages allegations sufficient to support the First-Party Statutory Bad Faith Claim.

   Unspecified Damages Claims were held sufficient as a matter of Florida law to support a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim, in the Federal case of  Royal Marco Point I Condominium Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp., Download Royal Marco Point I Condominium Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp. (M.D. Fla. Case No. 2.07cv16, Memorandum Opinion Filed July 13, 2010)FREE ACCESS DOWNLOAD also published as 2010 WL 2757240 *3 (M.D. Fla. July 13, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to access Westlaw).  The Federal Court in that case denied the Defendant Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss and its Motion for Summary Judgment.

   The Plaintiff Condominium Association, according to the Court's Opinion, alleged variously that because of the alleged actions of the Defendant, it had to spend money "from its operating account," "exhausted its maintenance reserves," assessed levies for repair costs on unit owners, "hired counsel and engaged its broker to attempt to secure payment," "took out a line of credit from Marco Community Bank to attempt to meet these repair costs," and "secured a $1.5 million small business loan ("SBA loan") with the U.S. Small Business Administration."  Royal Marco Point I Condominium Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp., 2010 WL 2757240 at *1-*2.

   Some or all of these allegations of Damages were thus viewed by the Federal Court in announcing a decision that the operative Complaint supported the Condominium Association's First-Party Bad Faith Statutory Claim in that case.

Compensatory and Consequential Damages Allegations and Recoveries in all kinds of Bad Faith Cases are exhaustively addressed by Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith" ยงยง 13:2 - 13:9  (Shepard's/McGraw-Hill First Edition, West Publishing Company Second Edition and 2010 Supplement).

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Posted by on July 22, 2010 at 10:49 AM in Attorney's Fees, Bad Faith, Damages, First Party Bad Faith, Statutory Bad Faith |

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.