Hammock v. Kent
Docket: No. 91-1147
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 16, 1992; Florida; State Appellate Court
The Hammocks, plaintiffs in a negligence lawsuit following an automobile accident, appeal two summary judgments. The court affirms the summary judgment regarding Kent's gross negligence, which would have negated his immunity as a fellow employee under Florida Statutes section 440.11(1). However, the court reverses the summary judgment on the issue of whether the Hammocks are estopped from claiming Kent's negligence. The accident occurred while Mr. Hammock was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Kent; both were employees of a Toyota dealership test driving a car. Following the accident, Hammock received workers' compensation benefits and initiated an underinsured motorist (UM) claim against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, the dealership's insurer, stating that Posey was entirely at fault. The Hammocks subsequently sued Posey and Universal, alleging Posey’s fault and that Universal had denied coverage beyond $20,000 despite having a $500,000 UM limit. They secured a $20,000 summary judgment in the Posey suit and received the policy limits from Posey's carrier. In December 1989, the Hammocks filed a negligence complaint against Kent, who claimed estoppel based on their previous assertion that Posey was solely responsible for the accident, which they used to secure UM benefits. The trial judge relied on the precedent set in Lambert v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., which established that a plaintiff cannot take a contradictory position in a subsequent suit after obtaining benefits based on prior claims. However, the court determined that the Hammocks did not explicitly allege in their earlier lawsuit that Posey was the sole negligent party, nor did the record show that Universal relied on Hammock's earlier assertion to change its position regarding UM coverage. Without evidence of reliance, estoppel was not established for summary judgment purposes. The ruling affirms the summary judgment on gross negligence but reverses the judgment concerning estoppel, remanding the case for further proceedings. The appeal does not address the attorney's obligation regarding good faith allegations.