Bell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

30 So. 3d 684, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3814, 2010 WL 1050044
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 24, 2010·No. 4D08-4471·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Valda Bell (“appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice her second amended complaint. The complaint was filed by the lead driver involved in a rear-end collision against, among others, the insurance company of the motorist in the rear vehicle. The appellant alleged that the insurance company failed to timely disclose, in violation of section 627.4137, Florida Statutes (2007), that it had agreed to provide coverage for any excess judgment.

The parties present valid arguments as to the interpretation of the terms of section 627.4137. However, we find no reversible error where the appellant was awarded a $2,690,806 verdict — which was promptly paid by the insurance company— under a policy of automobile insurance with bodily injury liability limits of $50,000 per person. See Mackey v. Reserve Ins. Co., 349 So.2d 830, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (“The favorable verdict rendered the error harmless to appellants.”); § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2007).

Affirmed.

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 30 So. 3d 684, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3814, 2010 WL 1050044 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

30 So. 3d 684 (Bell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

MacKey v. Reserve Ins. Co.
349 So. 2d 830 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)