In Government Emp's Ins. Co. v. Prushansky, 2014 WL 47734 (S.D. Fla. January 7, 2014), a Federal District Judge found a new rule in Florida jurisprudence. The Federal Judge denied a liability insurance company's motion for summary judgment in a bad-faith-failure-to-settle case in part because there is inherently a fact question "where an overreaching release is proposed".
In the Prushansky case, the overreaching-release-fact-question came about when counsel for the underlying claimant testified that the underlying defense counsel representing the defendants-insureds told him, the counsel for the underlying claimant, that the insurance company refused to delete indemnity language in a proposed release. Government Emp's Ins. Co. v. Prushansky, 2014 WL 47734 *10 (S.D. Fla. January 7, 2014) (citing two Florida cases linked in the opinion available on Westlaw).
The counsel for the claimants testified that he filed the underlying lawsuit in the first place because the carrier failed to remove indemnity language from its proposed release "and offer more than" the policy limit. Government Emp's Ins. Co. v. Prushansky, 2014 WL 47734 *6 (S.D. Fla. January 7, 2014).
Later, after the underlying lawsuit was filed, the claimants' counsel rejected the liability insurance company's tender of its policy limits accompanied by a release with the indemnity language intact. Government Emp's Ins. Co. v. Prushansky, 2014 WL 47734 *7 (S.D. Fla. January 7, 2014).
A new rule emerges like an island in the ocean of bad-faith-failure-to-settle cases. Who knew a rule was even there, or about to arise? Or that heaven forbid we need a new "rule" when in Florida such a case as was presented here would likely go to the Jury anyway?
© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. No claim to original U.S. Government works.
Please Read The Disclaimer.