You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Brubaker

Citations: 653 So. 2d 1054; 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3558Docket: Nos. 94-00453, 94-01630

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 7, 1995; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

An automobile accident led to a legal dispute in which Auto-Owners Insurance Company was required to provide a defense for Neva Brubaker and Julie L. Farber. They alleged that Auto-Owners breached its duty to defend and acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim that resulted in a default judgment against them. The court affirmed the trial court's partial summary judgment and the multi-million dollar final judgment in favor of Brubaker and Farber, citing established precedent regarding an insurer's duty to defend. However, the court reversed the award of postjudgment interest on the prejudgment interest amount, referencing prior cases that prohibit such an award. The case was remanded for reconsideration of this specific issue. Judges Ryder and Threadgill concurred with the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Bad Faith in Insurance Settlements

Application: The court upheld the trial court's judgment in favor of Brubaker and Farber, recognizing that Auto-Owners acted in bad faith by not settling the claim.

Reasoning: The court affirmed the trial court's partial summary judgment and the multi-million dollar final judgment in favor of Brubaker and Farber, citing established precedent regarding an insurer's duty to defend.

Insurer's Duty to Defend

Application: The court confirmed that Auto-Owners Insurance Company breached its duty to defend Neva Brubaker and Julie L. Farber by refusing to settle a claim, resulting in a default judgment against them.

Reasoning: They alleged that Auto-Owners breached its duty to defend and acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim that resulted in a default judgment against them.

Prohibition of Postjudgment Interest on Prejudgment Interest

Application: The court reversed the award of postjudgment interest on the prejudgment interest amount, following precedent that prohibits such awards.

Reasoning: However, the court reversed the award of postjudgment interest on the prejudgment interest amount, referencing prior cases that prohibit such an award.

Remand for Reconsideration

Application: The case was sent back to the lower court for further consideration regarding the specific issue of postjudgment interest on prejudgment interest.

Reasoning: The case was remanded for reconsideration of this specific issue.