INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT EXPOSED INSURER TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Barry Zalma
Aug 16, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gjqDkjzB and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gMAQ76Cw and at https://lnkd.in/gbb4cMqp and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4550 posts.
An extra today because I’ll be unable to post tomorrow.
Susanne Cook (“Appellant”) appealed the trial court’s denial of her motion for leave to amend her complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages against Florida Peninsula Insurance Company (“the Insurance Company”). In Susanne Cook v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Company, No. 5D22-2334, Florida Court of Appeals, Fifth District (August 11, 2023) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute.
BACKGROUND
Following the conclusion of a first-party lawsuit for windstorm insurance benefits, Appellant filed a motion for leave to amend to assert a claim for punitive damages, and a proposed amended complaint alleging bad faith by the Insurance Company.
The Insurance Company allegedly ignored information in its own file confirming coverage for her claim, used faulty data when it denied the claim, failed to conduct a proper investigation of the claim, misrepresented the policy and coverages afforded under the policy, and refused to issue payment for coverage under the policy to restore the property to its pre-loss condition.
Appellant claimed she suffered actual damages including but not limited to attorney’s fees, public adjuster’s fees, expert fees, loss of use and decrease in value of her property, loss of enjoyment of her property, damaged credit, and general damages.
She supported her claim because the Insurance Company-as a business practice-misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue, intentionally omitted language to mislead insureds and avoid paying claims and failed to properly investigate claims.
Appellant provided examples of three other similar claims. Appellant presented copies of letters from the Insurance Company to two other insureds that were similar in substance to that which it sent to Appellant-denying coverage and misrepresenting the terms of their policies by changing and omitting the language that would trigger coverage. In the third example, Appellant presented excerpts from the deposition testimony of a corporate representative of the Insurance Company stating it did not retain an engineer to properly inspect reported damage on another claim prior to denying coverage.
The trial court found there had to be a showing of frequency of a general business practice of more than three other claims for punitive damages to be asserted and that the Insurance Company’s misrepresentation was a mistake. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages.
ANALYSIS
A rigorous standard is applied to a motion for leave to amend a complaint to assert a punitive damages claim. Before allowing a punitive damages claim to satisfy his initial burden by means of a proffer, the statute contemplates that a claimant might obtain admissible evidence or cure existing admissibility issues through subsequent discovery.
Punitive damage amendments by statute the burden of proof at trial and provides that a defendant may be held liable for punitive damages only if the trier of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds that the defendant was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.
It is not whether the wrongful business practice has already been proven, but whether the plaintiff made a sufficient showing by evidence in the record or proffer to establish a reasonable basis for it to ultimately be found that the defendant engaged in the wrongful conduct as a business practice.
What is required is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. The appellate court concluded that Appellant’s actual evidence and proffered evidence reasonably demonstrated an indication that the Insurance Company misrepresented coverage and failed to properly investigate claims as a general practice, in reckless disregard for the rights of its insureds.
“Intentional misconduct” means that the defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to the claimant would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.
The Court of Appeals concluded that there were reasonable inferences and sufficient circumstances submitted to plead intentional misconduct. The trial court was required to determine whether Appellant offered reasonable evidence of a misrepresentation, not whether the mistake was intentional. The trial court erroneously made a factual determination at the pleading stage. The trial court’s order was reversed.
ZALMA OPINION
There is no excuse for an insurer to lie to the insured. If, as alleged, the insurer intentionally lied to the insured about available coverages and did so as part of a normal business practice to at least three more insureds, it can be subject to punitive damages in Florida. If the Appellant proves her allegations the insurer will be punished for its wrongdoing.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Daily articles are published at Zalma on Insurance Insurance, insurance claims, insurance law, and insurance fraud .
By Barry Zalma
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Subscribe to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Coverage for Damage to Vacant Dwelling Limited
Post number 5388
Vandalism Damage to Vacant Dwelling Excluded
Posted on July 7, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Tyrone Williamson v. Farmers Insurance Co., 2026-Ohio-2530, C. A. No. 30717, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery (July 2, 2026) Tyrone Williamson owned a duplex in Dayton, Ohio that he rented as two separate units. While the units were unoccupied by tenants, break-ins occurred in February, March, and April 2024, causing damage to doors, windows, walls, plumbing, flooring, fencing, lighting, a ceiling fan, grass, and other parts of the property, and resulting in the theft of items including tools, generators, a power washer, an air-conditioning unit, car wheels, and a radio.
Farmers Insurance paid approximately $17,000 for some damage from the first break-in but denied other claimed losses, including additional property damage, stolen personal property, and lost rent.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Farmers Insurance on Williamson’s ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
