Bell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
This text of 30 So. 3d 684 (Bell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
30 So. 3d 684, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3814, 2010 WL 1050044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-fladistctapp-2010.