Insured Cannot Bring Common Law Claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Separate and Apart From Claim for Statutory Bad Faith


By Karma Hall, Esq. 

 In Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Association, Inc. v. QBE Insurance Corp., No. SC09-441, (May 31, 2012), the Florida Supreme Court was called upon to decide (among other certified questions*) whether an insured may bring a common law claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing separate and apart from a claim for statutory bad faith.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court, explaining that “[n]o Florida court has explicitly held that an insured may bring a claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing for an insurer’s failure to investigate and assess its insured’s claim within a reasonable period of time.” Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Association, Inc. v. QBE Insurance Corp., 561 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2009). On the other hand, the court noted “[n]or do we believe that the Florida courts have decisively held that a statutory bad faith action provides the exclusive remedy for an insurer’s failure to investigate and assess its insured’s claim within a reasonable period of time.” Still further, “Florida courts have not determined whether the bifurcation requirement applicable to statutory bad faith claims also applies to a claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing based on an insurer’s failure to investigate and assess its insured’s claim within a reasonable period of time.”

The Florida Supreme Court concluded that claims against insurers for failure to promptly investigate a claim “are actually statutory bad-faith claims that must be brought under section 624.155 of the Florida Statutes.”  In reaching this result, the Court acknowledged that Florida contract law recognizes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract, and noted that this covenant is intended to protect “the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties in light of their express agreement.”  Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that it has specifically declined to adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations in the context of insurance contracts, concluding that construing insurance policies under this doctrine “can only lead to uncertainty and unnecessary litigation.”

The Court mentioned two limitations on claims involving alleged breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: “(1) where application of the covenant would contravene the express terms of the agreement; and (2) where there is no accompanying action for breach of an express term of the agreement.” Further, because a statutorily created bad faith cause of action was created by the Florida legislature in Fla. Stat. § 624.155, the only remedy available is the statutory bad-faith action created by that statute.


* The Court also held that: an insured cannot bring a claim against an insurer for failure to comply with the language and type-size requirements established by Fla. Stat. § 627.701(4)(a); an insurer’s failure to comply with the language and type-size requirements established in Section 627.701(4)(a) does not render a noncompliant hurricane deductible provision in an insurance policy void and unenforceable as the legislature has not provided for this penalty; and a contractual provision mandating payment of benefits upon “entry of a final judgment” does not waive the insurer’s procedural right to post a bond and stay the execution of a money judgment pending resolution of appeal.”

Click to view full opinion.

Do you have property damage and need assistance? 

The Law Office of Karma Hall, PA provides legal services throughout Florida, main office in Miami.  Visit us online: www.karmahallpa.com;  email info@karmahallpa.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nominal Proposals for Settlement are Held Valid Where the Offeror Has a Reasonable Basis to Believe that Exposure to Liability is Minimal

By Karma Hall, Esq. On May 31, 2017, Florida's 1st DCA was asked to resolved alleged inconsistencies in prior holdings involving the question of whether a nominal proposal for settlement offer can be made in good faith. In Taylor Eng'g, Inc. v. Dickerson Fla., Inc. , Case No. 1D15-4782 (Fla. 1st DCA May 31, 2017), the Appellee, Dickerson, argued that the Taylor's proposal for settlement was a nominal offer that was not made in good faith, and for this reason the trial court should disallow an award of costs and attorneys' fees. To support his argument, Dickerson pointed to § 768.79(7)(a), Fla. Stat., which provides: If a party is entitled to costs and fees pursuant to the provisions of this section, the court may, in its discretion, determine that an offer was not made in good faith. In such case, the court may disallow an award of costs and attorney’s fees. The 1st DCA disagreed it made inconsistent rulings concerning the standard in determining whether a n...
Read more

Construction Lien Case Holding: Where both Parties Prevail on Significant Issues, Neither Party Recovers Appellate Attorney's Fees

Image
By Karma Hall, Esq.  In the decision of Bauer v. Ready Windows Sales & Services Corporation , Case No.: 3D16-1171 (Fla. 3d DCA June 21, 2017), Florida's Third District Court of Appeals was tasked with reviewing entitlement to appellate attorney's fees claimed by both parties, where both parties had filed competing motions seeking recovery of appellate attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 9.400 and section 713.29, each taking the position that they were the prevailing party after each having won on some issues but having lost on other issues. Florida's Third District Court of Appeals denied the motions for appellate attorney's fees as to both parties. The 3rd DCA held while both parties prevailed on significant issues, neither party would recover appellate attorney's fees. Here, each party lost on their appeal, while each party successfully defended that part of the judgment in their favor on the other party’s cross-appeal. As support for its finding, the ...
Read more

Second or "Re-Opened" Appraisal Not Permitted Where Law and Ordinance Issue Arose Subsequent to Appraisal Award

By Karma Hall, Esq.  In the matter of  Noa v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 215 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), Florida's 3d DCA affirmed the trial court's order denying an insured a second appraisal of damaged property pursuant to a property insurance contract. Prior to suit, the insurance claim (a 2005 Hurricane Wilma windstorm claim involving roof damage) had resulted in an undisputed payment followed by demand for appraisal. The appraisal award provided payment for 3% of the roof.  Less than  a month after the appraisal award was entered and paid, the insured's roofer submitted a permit application to the Miami-Dade building and zoning authority for repair of 30% of the roof.  The roofing permit was denied. Florida Building Code and Miami-Dade County Building Code prohibit repair to more than 25% of the roof. In such a situation, an entire roof replacement would be required.  Following denial  of the permit application, the insured and the ...
Read more