Florida Appeals Court Rules for Insurer in Coverage Dispute with DCF
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal Wednesday reversed and remanded a partial summary judgment granted to DCF against Diamond State Insurance Co.
October 30, 2019 at 03:53 PM
4 minute read
A Florida appellate court has ruled against a state agency battling a private insurer over liability coverage.
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion Wednesday reversing and remanding a final declaratory judgment entered in Miami-Dade Circuit Court for the Florida Department of Children and Families against Diamond State Insurance Co. The appellate panel determined the lower court granted the DCF's motion for summary judgement against the insurer prematurely, and ruled issues of material fact remained in the case.
The dispute began after two minors filed complaints against Our Kids of Miami-Dade/Monroe Inc., a private company contracted by the DCF to render child protective services. As noted in the Third DCA's opinion, Florida's foster care system was privatized in 2000.
The suits alleged Our Kids allowed abuse to happen under its watch, and the parties eventually settled for a combined total of $2,990,000 between the two plaintiffs.
According to the Third DCA, Diamond State provided professional liability insurance to Our Kids with a limit of $1 million per claim and $3 million in the aggregate.
Read the opinion:
After the settlements, the plaintiffs pursued additional litigation against DCF. The lawsuit cited DCF's contract with Our Kids and contended the state agency's negligence enabled the alleged abuse outlined in the complaints.
DCF responded to the suits and asked Diamond State to intervene as the company's plan with Our Kids provided coverage to the state agency as well.
The insurer refused, arguing the $2,990,000 in settlements had exhausted the policy's limits and relinquished the company from having to defend claims against the policyholder. The Third DCA also said the disputed plan didn't cover "where DCF was sued for its own negligence."
DCF subsequently brought legal action against Diamond State and sought a declaratory judgment outlining that the insurer "had a duty to defend" the organization. The agency filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that "the duty to defend is determined by looking only to the pleadings, which made no reference to policy limits" and that Diamond State did not firmly establish the policy had been fully spent.
Diamond State responded with an affidavit from its senior claims examiner claiming otherwise. DCF's reply attacked the affidavit's credibility, maintaining "the insurer admitted in discovery that it lacked some of the documentation normally associated with such a payment of the policy limits" in addition to purporting Diamond State had made false statements and failed to provide the court with crucial documents.
The lower court granted DCF's motion for partial summary judgment and entered a final judgment declaring Diamond State had a duty to defend the organization from the claims. The ruling prompted the insurer to appeal to the Third DCA.
The appellate court ruled the questions of credibility surrounding Diamond State's affidavit necessitated further proceedings in the case.
"Because the existence and exhaustion of policy limits is not a matter normally addressed in a complaint, it would be impossible to enforce the bargain reached by the parties if the court refused to look beyond the pleadings," the opinion said, noting DCF's suit against Diamond State "presents a narrow exception to the general rule that the duty to defend is determined by looking only at the pleadings."
"In order to resolve a duty to defend dispute which turns on whether the policy limits were exhausted, courts must look to the actual facts behind the pleadings," the opinion added. "While a trier-of-fact may well agree with DCF as a factual matter that the testimony of the senior claims examiner lacks credibility, summary judgment is not the vehicle to make such a determination."
Ezequiel Lugo and Chris W. Altenbernd of Banker Lopez Gassler's Tampa office represented Diamond State before the Third DCA. Neither attorney responded to press inquiries by deadline.
DCF's appellate counsel, Coral Gables attorney Andrew J. Anthony, declined to provide comment.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Families Settle Court Battle Over Who Owns Parkland Killer's Name, Likeness
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 2Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
- 3USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces Resignation Ahead of Administration Change
- 4As Gen AI Acceptance Grows, Lawyers Race to Mitigate Risks
- 5Decisions Have 'Real-Life Consequences': Juvenile Court Judge Considered for Appellate Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250