Machalette v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
Filing
46
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Summary Judgment and Entry of Final Judgment in Favor of Defendant 44 is DENIED. This case shall remain closed. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 10/3/2011. (LN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
LYNDA MACHALETTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:10-cv-600-T-30TGW
SOUTHERN-OWNERS INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
of Court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment and Entry of Final Judgment in Favor of
Defendant (Dkt. 44) and Defendant’s Response in opposition (Dkt. 45). The Court, having
reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that
the motion should be denied.
DISCUSSION
On August 23, 2011, the Court granted Defendant Southern-Owners Insurance
Company’s motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment in Defendant’s favor
(Dkt. 42). Plaintiff now moves the Court for reconsideration of its Order, arguing that the
court misapplied Powell v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 584 So. 2d 12,
14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) and relied upon irrelevant and/or disputed facts. The Court disagrees
and denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff’s main argument for reconsideration is that the Court incorrectly applied
Powell because it transformed Powell’s duty to initiate settlement negotiations into a duty
to tender policy limits. Plaintiff misreads the Court’s Order. As Defendant points out in its
response, the Court correctly articulated and applied Powell. The Court’s Order merely
reflects the fact that Defendant ultimately offered to tender the policy limits after it was
finally provided with information about the extent of Mr. Olivio’s injuries. In other words,
Powell was discussed in the context of this fact; the Court did not alter the extent of
Defendant’s duty under Powell.
The Court’s approach mirrored that of the district court in Ahoy v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, 09-CV-21400-CIV, 2010 WL 727967, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan.
5, 2010), aff’d, 394 Fed. Appx. 655 (11th Cir. 2010). And, like the district court in Ahoy, the
Court concluded that Defendant was unable to determine that Mr. Olivio’s injuries were so
serious that a judgment in excess of the policy limits was likely until months after the
underlying suit was filed.1 Until that time, Defendant owed no duty under Powell to initiate
settlement negotiations. Thus, Plaintiff’s argument is without merit.
1
Indeed, the district court in Ahoy held: “the Court finds that no reasonable fact finder could conclude
that State Farm’s decision to wait for verification from a reliable source-such as a licensed attomey-that
Ahoy’s damages exceeded $15,000 before tendering the $15,000 policy limit was unreasonable.” 2010 WL
727967, at *5
Page 2 of 4
Plaintiff’s final argument is that the Court relied on irrelevant and/or disputed facts.
This argument is similarly without merit. Plaintiff argues that there is a dispute regarding
whether five days after the accident Defendant asked Mrs. Olivio to send medical
documentation of Mr. Olivio’s injuries. Plaintiff fails to cite to the record regarding this
alleged “dispute” and Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment cites
to no evidence that would place this fact in dispute. Moreover, this fact was not material to
the Court’s conclusion that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Also, the Court’s discussion of Mike Walker’s post-filing behavior is not irrelevant.
These facts demonstrate Defendant’s inability, even after the suit was filed, to determine
whether Mr. Olivio’s damages likely exceeded the policy limits until the attorney
representing Machalette in the underlying action filed a motion to compel the information
and the court set the matter for hearing. And, even if the Court were to agree with Plaintiff
that anything occurring after-suit was not relevant because Plaintiff would not have settled
with Defendant after the underlying suit was filed (which it does not), Plaintiff’s argument
still does not change the fact that pre-suit, Defendant was unable to determine that Mr.
Olivio’s injuries were so serious that a judgment in excess of the policy limits was likely.
Thus, Defendant did not have an affirmative duty pre-suit to initiate settlement negotiations.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Order Granting Summary
Judgment and Entry of Final Judgment in Favor of Defendant (Dkt. 44) is
DENIED.
Page 3 of 4
2.
This case shall remain closed.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on October 3, 2011.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2010\10-cv-600.mtreconsider44.frm
Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?