This article continues from the article posted here on Monday of this week, the first day of a new month. In this continuation, we learn how the Florida intermediate appellate court ruled on the narrow question before it in the Markuson case.
The Court in the Markuson case concluded:
We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that [the defendant liability insurance company] had no duty to enter into a consent judgment in excess of the limits of its policy. Having so determined, we hasten to add that our affirmance of the trial court’s ruling is limited to the [one] theory of bad faith the court addressed. The trial court erred by entering a final judgment in favor of [the defendant liability insurance company] to the extent the Appellants’ claims raised other theories of bad faith governed by Boston Old Colony [Insurance Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980)] and its progeny. For that reason, we must reverse the partial final judgment and remand for further proceedings.[1]
[1] Markuson, 2024 WL 817545, at *4.
The questions in bad faith cases are explored in the Two Volumes of Dennis J. Wall's Book, LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH (West Publishing Co. 3d Edition, 2024 Supplements in process). This blog article ©2024 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. Please read the disclaimer.
Comments