In an opinion just released on Westlaw, Jimenez v. GEICO, No. 6:10–cv–640–Orl–37KRS, 2015 WL 12844296, at *4 (M.D. Fla. April 28, 2015) (italics in original), the Court wrote:
The Eleventh Circuit has specifically found that question two of the verdict form—“Do you find the consent judgment entered into by [Antonio James Jimenez] was reasonable in amount and not tainted by bad faith, fraud, collusion or without any effort to minimize liability?”—is an accurate statement of Florida law and has upheld the use of the question as a special verdict form interrogatory. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 534 Fed. Appx. at 928 (upholding use of the Special Verdict Form Interrogatory and explaining that “Florida law could not be clearer as to the elements necessary to enforce a consent judgment. Subsequent to the entry of the agreement, the injured party must bring an action against the insurer and prove coverage, wrongful refusal to defend, and that the settlement was reasonable and made in good faith.”).... The special interrogatory question on the verdict form has specifically been approved by the Eleventh Circuit for use in bad faith claims involving Coblentz agreements. See id.
Parenthetically, once again a Federal Court in Florida insists on calling a consent judgment with an assignment of bad-faith rights a "Coblentz" agreement in any case in which the liability carrier refuses to defend. The name comes from a case decided by a Federal appellate court: "In Coblentz v. American Surety Company of New York, the Fifth Circuit held that 'if a liability insurer is informed of an action against its insured, but declines to defend the insured, the insurer may be held to a consent judgment entered in that action, absent fraud or collusion.' 416 F.2d 1059, 1062-63 (5th Cir. 1969)." Jimenez v. GEICO, No. 6:10–cv–640–Orl–37KRS, 2015 WL 12844296, at *1 n.1 (M.D. Fla. April 28, 2015).
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2016 by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments