Safeco Insurance v. Fridman
117 So. 3d 16
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Fridman, insured under Safeco's UM policy for $50,000, was injured in a 2007 auto collision with an underinsured tortfeasor.
- Safeco tendered the policy limits ($50,000) and Fridman filed a Civil Remedy Notice under section 624.155 in 2008 alleging bad-faith handling of UM claim.
- Fridman sued Safeco for UM benefits in 2009; trial date set for 2011; Safeco tendered the policy limits and filed a confession of judgment and motion for entry of confessed judgment.
- The trial court denied entry of confession of judgment, and the case proceeded to trial in 2011-2012, where the jury awarded Fridman $1,000,000 total damages.
- The final judgment awarded $50,000 with interest, and reserved jurisdiction to determine bad-faith damages and related fees if Fridman prevailed in a future bad-faith action; the court contemplated entry of a supplement judgment.
- On appeal, the court held the jury verdict moot because Safeco had confessed judgment for policy limits; the verdict was deemed a nullity, and remanded to enter a confessed judgment and delete the jury verdict reference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confession of judgment moots remaining UM issues | Fridman contends the UM damages must be determined by a jury for bad-faith action, not mooted by confession. | Safeco argues confession of judgment resolves the contract claim and forecloses further UM proceedings. | Mootness; the confessed judgment should render the UM issues final and allow remedy by confessed judgment. |
| Whether a policy-limits confession precludes later bad-faith damages | Fridman maintains bad-faith damages may be pursued in a separate action and potentially exceed policy limits. | Safeco argues the trial should end with the policy-limits payment and no excess damages. | Confessed judgment does not bar later bad-faith action for damages exceeding policy limits. |
| Appropriate remedy when UM issues are mooted by confession | Fridman seeks to preserve the jury's determination of damages and proceed with bad-faith action. | Safeco seeks to finalize the matter via confession and avoid trial on damages. | Final judgment should be amended to delete the jury verdict reference and reflect confessed judgment with leave to pursue costs and fees; remand for amended judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 2000) (prematurity rule for bad-faith actions; damages preconditions)
- Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1991) (premise that bad-faith action requires determination of liability and extent of damages)
- Imhof v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 643 So.2d 617 (Fla. 1994) (precludes premature bad-faith claims absent damage determination)
- Brookins v. Goodson, 640 So.2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (settlement of UM claim can satisfy Blanchard/Imhof predicates allowing bad-faith action)
- Clough v. Gov't Empls. Ins. Co., 636 So.2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (distinguishable from Brookins/Blanchard; settlement predicates)
- Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp., 55 So.3d 567 (Fla. 2010) (reason to permit reserved judgment for prejudgment interest as incidental to final judgment)
- Wollard v. Lloyd’s & Cos. of Lloyd’s, 439 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1983) (statutory remedies and confession of judgment precedent)
- Godbwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1992) (mootness doctrine foundational definition)
- Voigt v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 971 So.2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (damages in UM case not to exceed policy limits when no bad-faith claim pending)