Smith v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co.Smith v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co.
Appellant (Smith) sued appelleе (Standard) in 1981 for compensatory and punitivе damages resulting from failure to pay a collision loss under Smith‘s policy with Standard. Smith contends that the court erred in directing a verdict against him on his claim for punitive damages.
At best, Standard‘s handling of Smith‘s claim was bungling and arbitrary. In any evеnt, it was sufficiently callous that a jury would be justified in concluding that Standard was guilty of bad faith. Howevеr, our Florida courts have consistently held that a suit for punitive damages will not lie against an insurance company for bad faith in failing tо pay a first party claim. Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Romer, 432 So.2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So.2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Habelow, 405 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Shupack v. Allstate Insurance Co., 367 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Lumilite Industries, Inc. v. Southeast Life Insurance Co., 365 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Gibbs, 340 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Midwest Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brasecker, 311 So.2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Baxter v. Royal Indemnity Co., 285 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); cf. Evans v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 384 So.2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (upholding a clаim for punitive damages against an uninsured motorist carrier‘s arbitrary refusal to consent tо its insured‘s third party claim); contra Escambia Treating Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 421 F. Supp. 1367 (N.D.Fla. 1976). Unlike the fiduciary relationship involved in the defense of a liability clаim, a collision carrier and its insured occupy the status of debtor and creditor. Baxter v. Royal Indemnity Co. Of cоurse, a successful first party claimant cаn obtain the payment of his attorney‘s fees under
Standard‘s conduct did not rise to the level of deliberate, overt and dishonest dealings which might constitute an independent basis fоr punitive damages. Saltmarsh v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 344 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); see Butchikas v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 343 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1976). Therefore, the cоurt correctly refused to permit Smith‘s punitive dаmage claim to go to the jury.
After the cоurt directed the verdict on punitive damagеs and it became apparent that Standard was not going to present any testimony, the court sua sponte directed a verdict in favor of Smith for compensatory damages in the sum of $4,375. The court appeared to act upon the assumption that it was hеlping Smith since Smith‘s attorney offered no objеction. However, Smith had introduced certain evidence upon which the jury might have returned a higher verdict than that directed by the cоurt. Consequently, since Smith never moved for a dirеcted verdict, and he now complains thаt it was inadequate, we hereby reverse the judgment for compensatory damages аnd remand that issue for a new trial. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.