This article is the concluding part of a series begun here and continued here on what the Courts hold about "General Business Practice" claims and proof in cases involving alleged statutory violations.
Similar holdings have been reached under similar statutory "general business practice" requirements for claiming and proving statutory violations in bad-faith cases, and for assessment of punitive damages in most cases. In Cook v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co.,[1] the Court was confronted with a "general business practice" or GBP dilemma. Proof of a general business practice is required in order to assess punitive damages under Florida law; proof of a GBP is also a central tenet of Florida Insurer Bad Faith Law under Florida's Bad Faith Statute, Section 624.155.
The Court resolved the issue of the proof required in order to prove a general business practice in the context of a claim for punitive damages, with these words which are very similar to the holdings in the Connecticut federal cases decided under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, discussed in articles published here earlier:
There is no magic number for other evidence required to show frequency of a general business practice in order to assert a claim for punitive damages—at a minimum it is the plaintiff’s own claim and at least one more. What is required is “a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” § 768.72(1), Fla. Stat. (2022); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(1)(f).[2]
Statutory bases of liability in settlement are discussed in § 3:28 (third-party bad faith claims and cases) and § 9:14 (first-party bad faith claims and cases), in DENNIS J. WALL, LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH (West Publishing Co., 2024 Supplements in process).
Please read the disclaimer. This article ©2024 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
[1] Cook v. Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co., 371 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).
[2] Cook, 371 So. 3d at 962.
Comments