The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

State Farm Liable for Bad Faith Delay of Hurricane Claims

Posted on November 11, 2014 by Larry Bodine
home in hands

The appellate court held liability for breach of contract need not be determined before a bad faith claim can be brought.

A Florida appeals court reinstated a bad faith action against State Farm Insurance, expanding an earlier precedent by ruling that it was not necessary to prove a breach of contract.

In Cammarata v. State Farm Fla.Ins. Co., the Fourth District Court of Appeal held State Farm Florida was liable for failing to settle the Cammarata’s homeowner’s claim in good faith and ruled that a judicial determination that State Farm breached the insurance policy is not required.

This decision is opposite Lime Bay Condominium v. State Farm Fla., where the appellate court held liability for breach of contract must be determined before a bad faith claim can be brought. 94 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Policy Claim Timeline

The policy holders, Joseph and Judy Cammarata, sustained damage to their home after Hurricane Wilma swept through Florida in October 2005. Nearly two years later they filed a property damage claim under their homeowner’s policy.

State Farm Florida refused liability for the damages because the appraisal estimate was lower than the deductible. The Cammaratas disputed this estimate and engaged in an appraisal process with the insurer, which continued for four years, from April 2008 to October 2009.

Finally, State Farm issued a settlement in December 2009. Soon after, the insureds filed their bad faith action against State Farm for failing to settle the claim in good faith.

On appeal, State Farm argued that the Cammaratas’ bad faith claim was not ripe because the insurer’s liability for a breach of contract claim had not been determined .

Ripe Bad Faith Claims 

On appeal, following a Florida Supreme Court precedent, the appellate court identified three elements to prove a bad faith claim.

  1. The insurer must have notice of the bad faith action.
  2. There must be a determination of liability.
  3. The determination of the extent of policy holder’s damages.

 

A neutral umpire found the damages to the home were higher than the policy deductible. This determination not only countered State Farm’s initial reason for denying the policy holder’s benefit claim, but also determined the insurer’s liability.

The court found that State Farm’s payment to the insured satisfied a determination of the extent of damages. The settlement constituted a favorable resolution and satisfied the requirements for a bad faith action.

Liability and damages determinations may be established by litigation, settlement or arbitration. See Imohf v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co 643 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1994) (held a settlement by the insurer through arbitration is the functional equivalent of a determination of damages). See also Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co. 710 So. 2d 982, 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (held a resolution of some kind in favor of the insured is a prerequisite.)

This opinion can be found at http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Sept.%202014/09-03-14/4D13-185.op.enbanc.pdf

Posted in Blog, Consumer Protection

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.