William A. Bishop, etc. v. Progressive Express Insurance Company
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
Undertaking communication, conduct, and steps in defense of an underlying action, heavily dependent upon the circumstances, may rise to a coverage by estoppel claim. This appeal involves an allegation an insurer made statements and undertook actions which led a business owner to believe she had insurance coverage for the underlying action; all this despite the insurer’s knowledge of facts which would have permitted it to deny coverage.
“When an insurance company assumes the defense of an action, with knowledge, actual or presumed, of facts which would have permitted it to deny coverage, it may…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner ParkDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
- Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
- Doe v. Allstate Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1995
- Cigarette Racing Team v. Parliament Ins. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
- FCCI Ins. Co. v. Cayce's Excavation, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, etc. v. CLEVELANDER OCEAN, LP, etc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2022
- L3Harris Technologies, Inc. v. Moog Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2025
- Progressive Express Insurance Company v. ANZUALDA BROTHERS, INC., etc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
- UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CHIROPRACTIC CLINICS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, PL, A/A/O MICHAEL AKINSDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2021