Kroener v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 9613
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Kroeners purchased the home from the Winders in 2007; prior owners had a 2005-2006 homeowners policy with Atlantic that covered Wilma damage but was not claimed.
- Prior owners executed an Assignment of Benefits in December 2007 directing Atlantic to pay benefits to Kroeners; assignment purportedly covered benefits during prior ownership periods.
- FIGA denied coverage arguing the prior owners lacked insurable interest at the time of assignment and that timely notice conditions were unmet; Kroeners filed breach of contract and declaratory relief suit.
- FIGA amended defenses arguing Kroeners were not the rightful claimants and that losses were void due to lack of residence in 2005, prior payment or fraud theories; discovery followed.
- Summary judgment was granted for FIGA in June 2009; FIGA offered a settlement of $32,000 on June 9, 2009; Kroeners sought to accept after final judgment but before/after filing notices.
- Kroeners moved for rehearing and for enforcement of FIGA’s settlement; the trial court denied enforcement, holding that final summary judgment terminated the offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment for FIGA | Kroeners contend assignment valid and timely notice met policy requirements. | FIGA asserts no insurable interest and untimely notice, defeating recovery. | Yes; final summary judgment for FIGA affirmed; untimely notice bars the claim and assignment lacks enforceable interest. |
| Whether FIGA’s settlement offer remained enforceable after summary judgment | Kroeners argue thirty-day window allowed acceptance post-summary judgment. | FIGA argues offer was terminated by final summary judgment and cannot be accepted thereafter. | No; final summary judgment terminated the offer and precluded acceptance. |
| Whether Kroeners had standing to sue on a policy to which they were not parties | Kroeners argue they were assigned benefits and could enforce policy claims. | FIGA contends Kroeners lack standing and the policy’s conditions preclude recovery. | No; standing and assignment issues foreclose recovery under the policy as framed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Highlands Ins. Co. v. Kravecas, 719 So.2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (untimely notice bars claim under insurance policy)
- Perkins v. U.S. West Communications, 138 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 1998) (Rule 68 offers do not survive final summary judgment)
- Day v. Krystal Co., 241 F.R.D. 474 (E.D. Tenn. 2007) (acceptance of Rule 68 offer after summary judgment defeats purposes of rule)
- Braham v. Carncross, 514 So.2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (offers of settlement cannot be accepted after verdict)
- O'Brien v. Russell, 698 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (acceptance timing under Rule 1.442 limits after defense verdict)