Hollis v. Allstate Insurance

Florida Circuit Courts

Hollis v. Allstate Insurance

10 Fla. Supp. 2d 65

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 1985

DocketCase No. 84 5816 CA (L) J

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Fla. Supp. 2d 65 (Hollis v. Allstate Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hollis v. Allstate Insurance, 10 Fla. Supp. 2d 65 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

MARY E. LUPO, Circuit Judge.

This matter came before the Court upon the motion by defendant Allstate Insurance Company to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for recovery of punitive damages under Section 624.155(4), Florida Statutes (1983).

The issue before the Court is whether Section 627.737(4), Florida Statutes (1983) prohibits the recovery of punitive damages. The plain[66]*66tiff argues that punitive damages can be recovered under Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (1983).

Section 627.737(4) is as follows:

In any action brought against an automobile liability insurer for damages in excess of its policy limits, no claim for punitive damages shall be allowed.

Section 624.155(4) reads:

No punitive damages shall be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are: (a) willful, wanton, and malicious; (b) in reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or (c) in reckless disregard for the rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract.

The plaintiff argues that Section 624.155, enacted after 627.737, repeals the former statute by implication. Oldham v. Rooks, 361 So.2d 140 (Fla. 1978). The court finds, however, that the rule of statutory construction in Oldham dictates that later statutes are passed with knowledge of prior existing laws, and a construction is favored which gives each one a field of operation, rather than have' the former repealed by implication. The court finds that the statutes are not so inconsistent that they cannot be harmonized or reconciled. Reyes v. Banks, 392 So.2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). The Court rejects the plaintiff’s argument that Section 627.737(4) is impliedly repealed by Section 624.155. The Court holds that punitive damages cannot be recovered by a third party claimant against an automobile insurer where the third party claimant obtained a verdict in excess of the insurer’s policy limits.

The Court hereby grants the defendant Allstate’s motion to dismiss.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

MARY E. LUPO, Circuit Judge.

This matter came before the Court upon the motion by defendant Allstate Insurance Company to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for recovery of punitive damages under Section 624.155(4), Florida Statutes (1983).

The issue before the Court is whether Section 627.737(4), Florida Statutes (1983) prohibits the recovery of punitive damages. The plain[66]*66tiff argues that punitive damages can be recovered under Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (1983).

Section 627.737(4) is as follows:

In any action brought against an automobile liability insurer for damages in excess of its policy limits, no claim for punitive damages shall be allowed.

Section 624.155(4) reads:

No punitive damages shall be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are: (a) willful, wanton, and malicious; (b) in reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or (c) in reckless disregard for the rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract.

The plaintiff argues that Section 624.155, enacted after 627.737, repeals the former statute by implication. Oldham v. Rooks, 361 So.2d 140 (Fla. 1978). The court finds, however, that the rule of statutory construction in Oldham dictates that later statutes are passed with knowledge of prior existing laws, and a construction is favored which gives each one a field of operation, rather than have' the former repealed by implication. The court finds that the statutes are not so inconsistent that they cannot be harmonized or reconciled. Reyes v. Banks, 392 So.2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). The Court rejects the plaintiff’s argument that Section 627.737(4) is impliedly repealed by Section 624.155. The Court holds that punitive damages cannot be recovered by a third party claimant against an automobile insurer where the third party claimant obtained a verdict in excess of the insurer’s policy limits.

The Court hereby grants the defendant Allstate’s motion to dismiss.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Fla. Supp. 2d 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollis-v-allstate-insurance-flacirct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack