Mohamad R. Samiian, M.D., individually etc. v. First Professionals Insurance etc.
180 So. 3d 190
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Dr. Mohamad Samiian performed liposuction on April 13, 2004; the patient later suffered cardiac arrest and died. The personal representative served a presuit notice under section 766.106(2) on April 13, 2005.
- FPIC retained counsel and, after investigating, tendered the full $250,000 policy limits to the estate’s attorney on July 11, 2005.
- Two days after tendering policy limits, FPIC (through retained counsel) offered binding arbitration that admitted liability and left only damages for arbitration; the estate accepted and an arbitration award far exceeding policy limits followed.
- An arbitration panel awarded approximately $35 million; final judgment against Dr. Samiian, including fees and interest, exceeded $43 million.
- Samiian sued FPIC for breach of contract and insurer bad faith, alleging FPIC acted in bad faith by offering arbitration that admitted liability (without limiting general damages) and by failing to advise or protect Samiian’s interests.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for FPIC based on the § 766.1185(1)(a) “safe harbor” (timely tender of policy limits), but the First DCA reversed, holding subsection (2) governs where bad-faith allegations involve insurer conduct other than mere failure to tender timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 766.1185(1)(a) safe harbor bar Samiian’s bad-faith claim? | Samiian: safe harbor does not apply because claim alleges bad faith in insurer’s method of investigation/evaluation and in offering arbitration that admitted liability rather than failure to tender. | FPIC: safe harbor bars bad-faith claims because it timely tendered policy limits within the statutory period. | The court held the safe harbor provision in subsection (1)(a) does not apply to Samiian’s claim; subsection (2) (fact-intensive factors) controls. |
| Is the offer to arbitrate (admitting liability) a basis for bad faith under § 766.1185(2)? | Samiian: offering arbitration that admitted liability and was not conditioned to limit damages breached duties and favored insurer interests over insured’s. | FPIC: the arbitration offer was proper; FPIC timely tendered limits and did not act in bad faith. | Court: whether the arbitration offer constituted bad faith raises material factual disputes and cannot be resolved on summary judgment. |
| Was FPIC legally responsible for the decision to offer arbitration (vicarious liability for retained counsel)? | Samiian: evidence suggests FPIC’s claims adjuster participated in the decision, making FPIC responsible. | FPIC: retained defense counsel are independent contractors; insurer generally not vicariously liable for counsel’s litigation decisions. | Court: factual dispute exists whether FPIC participated in/controlled the arbitration decision; cannot resolve on summary judgment. |
| Can summary judgment be affirmed on alternative grounds (tipsy-coachman) urged by FPIC? | Samiian: trial court did not decide that alternative ground; disputes remain. | FPIC: asks appellate court to affirm on alternative theory it raised below. | Court: declined to affirm on that alternative because material factual issues remain and the trial court already found disputes precluding resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Samiian v. Gottlieb, 36 So. 3d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming arbitration ruling)
- Alpha Data Corp. v. HX5, L.L.C., 139 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (standard that summary judgment is inappropriate if any material factual dispute exists)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (conflicting evidence and reasonable inferences must be decided by jury)
- Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (tipsy-coachman doctrine discussion)
- Hope v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 114 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (limits application of right-for-wrong-reason affirmance in summary judgment context)