Jeff Greenberg (DeLand, FL) (Insurance Coverage) obtained an order granting Final Summary Judgment on behalf of Defendant Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company in an action for breach of contract and alleged “bad faith” claims handling.
On September 14, 2022, the Plaintiff completed an application for an insurance policy with Defendant. The policy, which was signed and acknowledged by Plaintiff, listed a 2021 Volkswagen Tiguan as the covered vehicle. Two days later, on September 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Defendant for a vehicle that was reported stolen earlier that day. Defendant contacted Plaintiff that same day to follow up on the claim. Defendant notified Plaintiff that the vehicle listed on the policy had not been reported as stolen and that the vehicle listed on the policy was not the same vehicle listed as stolen in the police report, and accordingly denied coverage for the stolen vehicle since it was not listed on the insurance policy. Plaintiff, on multiple occasions thereafter, requested that Defendant reverse its claim determination claiming inadvertent error during the insurance application process.
Plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim alleging breach of contract and “bad faith” handling. Plaintiff argued that, based on his undisputed intent to cover the stolen vehicle – rather than the previously-owned vehicle he actually listed in his policy application – the insurance contract should be reformed to include the vehicle Plaintiff actually owned at the time of the policy inception, and that the Court should order specific performance by Defendant of the reformed contract. Defendant argued that providing Plaintiff with coverage by estoppel was inappropriate and that it can only be expected to provide coverage within the four corners of the actual insurance contract. Defendant further argued that a coverage determination in favor of Plaintiff would set a dangerous precedent unsupported by established case law, as insurance contracts should never be construed to reach an absurd result, and that such a ruling would require insurers to blindly adhere to the claimed intent of the insured after the insured has suffered a loss to specific property that was not covered at the time of loss.
The Honorable Kenneth J. Janesk, II, Circuit Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for St. Johns County agreed with Defendant’s arguments, ruling in favor of Defendant Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company on the merits of the claim and Defendant’s defenses. The Court found there was no breach of the insurance contract, and that Defendant had not acted in bad faith when it denied Plaintiff’s claim.