Oak Casualty Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oak Casualty Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

778 So. 2d 483, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1785, 2001 WL 167083

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 2001

DocketNos. 3D99-1886, 3D00-1009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 778 So. 2d 483 (Oak Casualty Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.) 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.

Bluebook

Oak Casualty Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 778 So. 2d 483, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1785, 2001 WL 167083 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the underlying third-party bad faith case, the defendant, Oak Casualty Insurance Company [Oak Casualty] appeals from an adverse final judgment. We affirm finding that the trial court properly gave a jury instruction pursuant to Imhof v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 643 So.2d 617 (Fla.1994), because Oak [484]*484Casualty failed to respond within sixty days to the notice of violation sued upon. Imhof 643 So.2d at 619 (“An insurer’s failure to respond within the sixty-day period will create a presumption of bad faith sufficient to shift the burden to the insurer to show why it did not respond.”); see also, Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1282 (Fla.2000) (“[T]he sixty-day window is designed to encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation .... To cure an alleged violation and to avoid civil action, an insurer must pay the claim (sometimes in excess of policy limits in the third-party context) before the sixty days expire.”).

Further, regarding the cross-appeal brought by the plaintiff, Travelers Indemnity Company [Travelers], Oak Casualty confesses error in the trial court’s denial of Traveler’s motion for additur. Oak Casualty concedes that the award of damages improperly omitted prejudgment interest.

Accordingly, we affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand for entry of a corrected judgment.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the underlying third-party bad faith case, the defendant, Oak Casualty Insurance Company [Oak Casualty] appeals from an adverse final judgment. We affirm finding that the trial court properly gave a jury instruction pursuant to Imhof v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 643 So.2d 617 (Fla.1994), because Oak [484]*484Casualty failed to respond within sixty days to the notice of violation sued upon. Imhof 643 So.2d at 619 (“An insurer’s failure to respond within the sixty-day period will create a presumption of bad faith sufficient to shift the burden to the insurer to show why it did not respond.”); see also, Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1282 (Fla.2000) (“[T]he sixty-day window is designed to encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation .... To cure an alleged violation and to avoid civil action, an insurer must pay the claim (sometimes in excess of policy limits in the third-party context) before the sixty days expire.”).

Further, regarding the cross-appeal brought by the plaintiff, Travelers Indemnity Company [Travelers], Oak Casualty confesses error in the trial court’s denial of Traveler’s motion for additur. Oak Casualty concedes that the award of damages improperly omitted prejudgment interest.

Accordingly, we affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand for entry of a corrected judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

778 So. 2d 483, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1785, 2001 WL 167083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oak-casualty-insurance-v-travelers-indemnity-co-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack