Richard S. Gallina v. Commerce and Industry

Eleventh Circuit

Richard S. Gallina v. Commerce and Industry

375 F. App'x 935

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedApril 20, 2010

Docket09-12782

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 375 F. App'x 935 (Richard S. Gallina v. Commerce and Industry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard S. Gallina v. Commerce and Industry, 375 F. App'x 935 (11th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs/Appellants Richard S. Gallina and Horne Brothers Construction, Inc., (“Horne”), appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee, Commerce and Industry Insurance (“C & I”), in this insurance bad faith case.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, and will construe all the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Shop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1136 (11th Cir.2007).

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of C & I. Horne’s bad faith claims fail as a matter of law for two separate but equally persuasive reasons:

(1) Horne breached the cooperation clause of the policy thereby foreclosing Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim. See Continental Cas. Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 283 Fed.Appx. 686, 691-92 (11th Cir.2008); and

(2) Horne has not suffered a verdict exposing it to damages in excess of the policy’s limits, nor has it been damaged in any way, and there is no reason, under these facts, to stray from the Florida rule that an insured under a standard-liability policy must suffer damages before pursing a bad faith claim against its insur *937 er. See Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So.2d 179, 181 (Fla.1994). Practically, Horne’s act of prematurely settling the case in violation of the insurance policy prevents this court from knowing whether Horne would have suffered damages in excess of the policy limits. The facts in this case are undisputed that C & I at all times defended Horne, Horne at all times accepted the defense, yet Horne breached its contract with C & I by settling its case with the injured party, without C & I’s consent, and rejecting C & I’s unconditional defense. For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs/Appellants Richard S. Gallina and Horne Brothers Construction, Inc., (“Horne”), appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee, Commerce and Industry Insurance (“C & I”), in this insurance bad faith case.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, and will construe all the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Shop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1136 (11th Cir.2007).

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of C & I. Horne’s bad faith claims fail as a matter of law for two separate but equally persuasive reasons:

(1) Horne breached the cooperation clause of the policy thereby foreclosing Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim. See Continental Cas. Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 283 Fed.Appx. 686, 691-92 (11th Cir.2008); and

(2) Horne has not suffered a verdict exposing it to damages in excess of the policy’s limits, nor has it been damaged in any way, and there is no reason, under these facts, to stray from the Florida rule that an insured under a standard-liability policy must suffer damages before pursing a bad faith claim against its insur *937 er. See Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So.2d 179, 181 (Fla.1994). Practically, Horne’s act of prematurely settling the case in violation of the insurance policy prevents this court from knowing whether Horne would have suffered damages in excess of the policy limits. The facts in this case are undisputed that C & I at all times defended Horne, Horne at all times accepted the defense, yet Horne breached its contract with C & I by settling its case with the injured party, without C & I’s consent, and rejecting C & I’s unconditional defense. For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 F. App'x 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-s-gallina-v-commerce-and-industry-ca11-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack