Skip to main content

Overlawyered Insurance Dispute Sheds Light on Attorney's Fee Issue

On October 18, 2011, the Miami-Dade Daily Business Review reports on the case of DeLeon v. Great American Assurance Co., where the Third District Court of Appeals held that a truck driver is entitled to attorney's fees after an attorney for his insurance carrier improperly questioned him during an examination under oath, thereby making judicial intervention necessary to resolve the claim.

The facts are as follows--the truck driver's tractor-trailer was stolen while parked at an interstate trucking company. When the police found the truck, it was damaged and nine tires were  missing. The trucker filed a claim with his insurer. The insurer required the trucker to submit to an examination under oath ("EUO"), as part of its investigation. Like many insurance policies, the trucker's required him to provide the statement before initiating a lawsuit. However during the EUO, the bulk of the questioning pertained to the trucker's unrelated criminal conviction and who he was living with at the time. The trucker refused to answer these questions. In response, the insurance company attorney threatened the trucker that he was jeopardizing his insurance coverage and invited him to withdraw his claim in lieu of responding. The trucker walked out of the EUO before its conclusion and subsequently filed suit.

The appellate court found that it was necessary for the trucker to resort to litigation in order to resolve his claim. The appellate court reasoned that the insurance company "decided to use the usual policy provision requiring a sworn statement as a license to make unwarranted and intrusive inquiries into the personal life of any insured who has the termerity to make a claim against it." The appellate court's concurring opinion broadened the exhortation to all counsel practicing within the state and warned that it will not tolerate improper conduct by attorneys in the handling of disputes, whether inside or outside of the courtroom. This is yet another decision cautioning insurers and their attorneys on how insureds should be treated.

If you are interested in receiving a full copy of the DBR article or of the opinion, please feel free to contact me at miamipandi@comcast.net or motero@houckanderson.com.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more