William Adams and Dorothy Adams, His Wife, and Thomas Shelton and Elizabeth Shelton, His Wife v. The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York

955 F.2d 39, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 3546, 1992 WL 28197
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMarch 6, 1992
Docket90-5229
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 955 F.2d 39 (William Adams and Dorothy Adams, His Wife, and Thomas Shelton and Elizabeth Shelton, His Wife v. The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York) 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
William Adams and Dorothy Adams, His Wife, and Thomas Shelton and Elizabeth Shelton, His Wife v. The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, 955 F.2d 39, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 3546, 1992 WL 28197 (11th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In Adams v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 920 F.2d 897 (11th Cir.1991), we certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

Assuming that Fla.Stat. Section 624.-155(1)(b)1. provides for a first-party bad faith claim in an uninsured motorist case, and assuming that damages exceeding the limits of the insurance policy may be collected against an uninsured motorist carrier, can the measure of damages properly include an award of punitive damages against the insurer?

Id. at 900. The Florida Supreme Court recently responded to this question in Adams v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 591 So.2d 929 (Fla.1992). The Florida Supreme Court referred to its recent decision in McLeod v. Continental Insurance Co., 591 So.2d 621 (Fla.1992), as determinative of this case. In McLeod, the court held that the proper measure of damages in first-party actions under section 624.155 “are those amounts which are the natural, proximate, probable, or direct consequence of the insurer’s bad faith actions,” and rejected “the contention that first-party bad faith damages should be fixed at the amount of the excess judgment.” 591 So.2d at 626.

In the case at bar, the district court did not have the benefit of McLeod or the Florida Supreme Court’s answer to the certified question posed by this court in this case. Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court, and REMAND for reconsideration in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s decisions in McLeod and Adams.

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

Related

Adams v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
147 F.R.D. 265 (S.D. Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
955 F.2d 39, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 3546, 1992 WL 28197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-adams-and-dorothy-adams-his-wife-and-thomas-shelton-and-elizabeth-ca11-1992.