Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Joseph Cammarata and Judy Cammarata v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 3, 2014No. 4D13-185Published

1ConcurrenceGerber, J.

Based on Vest ⅛ controlling nature, I am compelled to concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to express my concern regarding the possible effect of the majority opinion.

In theory, the majority opinion would open the door to allow an insured to sue an insurer for bad faith any time the insurer dares to dispute a claim, but then pays the insured just a penny more than the insurer’s initial offer to settle, without a determination that the insurer breached the contract. Such a slippery slope would appear to conflict with the supreme court’s own warning in Vest:

We hasten to point out…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hill v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
  2. NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & CAS. INSURANCE v. BobinskiDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
  3. State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. SilberDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011
  4. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. BrewerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API