Geico General Insurance Co. v. Rodriguez
155 So. 3d 1163
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Geico issued a vehicle liability policy to Blanchard, covering court costs in a covered lawsuit.
- Blanchard caused a 2005 accident injuring Rodriguezes; Geico tendered policy limits of $20,000.
- Rodriguezes filed suit against Blanchard in 2006; Geico defended under the policy.
- Blanchard gave deposition in 2007 with misrepresentations later shown by discovery records; sanction motions followed.
- Court sanctioned Blanchard’s estate in 2008 for attorney fees and costs totaling about $27,343; sanction judgment entered against Geico’s insured estate.
- Geico later challenged coverage, attempted to withdraw coverage via reservations of rights; the estate sought indemnity for the sanctions judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions constitute a covered court cost under the policy | Rodriguezes: sanctions are costs in a covered lawsuit, within policy | Geico: fraud/misrepresentation provision may void coverage or be a defense to coverage | Sanctions are covered court costs; policy provides coverage for sanctions in a covered lawsuit. |
| Whether the April 2008 reservation of rights was effective or triggered CAS | Estate contends CAS not applicable as ROR ineffectual | Geico argues ROR justified denial/voided coverage | ROR ineffectual; CAS not triggered for voiding coverage. |
| Whether the insured’s duty to cooperate was violated by estate’s actions | Beville/Taylor: insured must cooperate; insurer’s ROA affects cooperation | Geico asserts duty to cooperate harmed by estate’s replacement counsel conditions | Insured had no ongoing duty to cooperate after ROR; cooperation not violated by estate’s actions. |
| Whether the estate's dismissal and consent judgments affected coverage | Estate sought to control defense; Geico argues prejudice | Geico’s defense strategy was undermined by insurer’s dispute over coverage | Policy coverage for sanctions affirmed; consent judgments were not defeating coverage; no preclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 740 (Fla. 2002) (liberal construction in favor of insured; interpret policy against insurer)
- Taylor v. Safeco Ins. Co., 361 So.2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (insured not required to abandon defense to obtain coverage payment)
- Beville v. Beville, 825 So.2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (unilateral defense under reservation affects insured’s duties)
- Bethel v. Sec. Nat’l Ins. Co., 949 So.2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (construction of policy terms when multiple readings possible)