QBE Insurance Corp. v. Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Ass'n
94 So. 3d 541
| Fla. | 2012Background
- Eleventh Circuit certified five Florida law questions determinative of a pending case; Florida Supreme Court to answer.
- Chalfonte Condominium Associations sued QBE Insurance for claims under Florida insurance statute and contract; district court dismissed §627.701(4)(a) claim.
- Jury awarded Chalfonte about $8.14 million for failure to provide coverage; district court applied hurricane deductible contrary to jury’s finding of noncompliance with §627.701(4)(a).
- Chalfonte sought enforcement of judgment arguing policy provision required payment within 30 days after entry of final judgment; district court rejected and appeal followed.
- The Florida Supreme Court held first-party bad-faith actions are statutory under §624.155, not separate contractual breaches; answered questions 1 and 2 moot.
- Court also addressed whether noncompliance with §627.701(4)(a) voids hurricane deductible and whether ‘entry of final judgment’ triggers an immediate payment duty, answering in the negative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are first-party bad-faith claims under §624.155 exclusive? | Chalfonte argues implied good-faith/contractual covenant exists separate from §624.155. | QBE argues no private first-party covenant claim exists; only statutory bad faith under §624.155. | First-party claims are statutory bad-faith claims under §624.155. |
| Can insured sue for failure to comply with §627.701(4)(a) language/type-size? | Chalfonte contends private right of action exists for notice noncompliance. | QBE contends no private right of action or penalty for noncompliance. | No private right of action or penalty; noncompliance cannot be litigated as a standalone claim. |
| Does §627.701(4)(a) noncompliance void or unenforce hurricane deductible? | Noncompliance should void the hurricane deductible provision. | Noncompliance does not void the provision; policy terms stand; penalties not provided by statute. | Noncompliance does not void or render unenforceable the hurricane deductible. |
| Does language stating payment upon ‘entry of a final judgment’ waive stay rights to post bond? | Provision unambiguously requires payment on trial-level judgment, circumventing stays. | Final judgment includes appellate process; stay rights remain intact absent explicit waiver. | No waiver of post-judgment stay rights; bond stay permissible under Rule 9.310. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) (establishes statutory bad faith extension to first-party claims)
- Laforet v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 658 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1995) (statutory bad-faith extension to first-party context discussed)
- Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 1999) (Florida implied covenant of good faith exists but not as independent first-party action)
- Murthy v. N. Sin-ha Corp., 644 So.2d 983 (Fla. 1994) (judicial implication of statutory action requires legislative intent)
- Prida v. Transamerica Ins. Fin. Corp., 651 So.2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (permissive penalties; noncompliance not automatically voids statute)
- Roberts v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (coinsurance notice statute with no implied private remedy unless explicit)