Ley et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 23

ORDER dismissing Counts Two and Three of 8 the Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 3/31/2016. (ALK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TAMARA LEY and JAMES LEY
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 8:15-cv-2687-T-24-TBM
vs.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ response (Dkt. 22) to the Court’s Order
to show cause (Dkt. 21). The Court recognized in its prior order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
that the law was not clear as to whether the underlying liability judgment was binding in a
subsequent bad faith determination. Dkt. 13. Thus, the Court abated Counts Two (statutory bad
faith) and Three (unfair claim settlement practices) of the Complaint.
Subsequent to the Court’s Order abating Counts Two and Three, the Florida Supreme Court
in Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., --- So. 3d --- (Fla. Feb. 25, 2016), 2016 WL 743258, made it
clear the determination of liability is binding in the subsequent bad faith action. The Court directed
Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss Counts Two and Three based on
Fridman. Dkt. 21.
Plaintiffs assert that the Court should abate, and not dismiss, Counts Two and Three
because judicial efficiency will be served by keeping the liability and bad faith claims before the
same judge. However, the Court previously abated Counts Two and Three not for purposes of

judicial efficiency, but because the law was unclear as to whether the underlying liability would
be binding in a subsequent bad faith action. Because the law is now settled, the Court finds that
Counts Two and Three should be dismissed, not abated.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 31st day of March, 2016.

Copies to: Counsel of Record

2