Talat Enterprises v. Aetna Casualty ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                [PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT                       FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________               ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    MAY 12 2000
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    No. 97-2327                           CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 95-00760-CIV-ORL-22
    TALAT ENTERPRISES, INC.,
    d.b.a Billy the Kid’s Buffet,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY,
    d.b.a. Aetna Life and Casualty,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    _________________________
    (May 12, 2000)
    Before COX and BLACK, and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    This is an appeal from a decision of the district court in Talat Enterprises, Inc.,
    v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 
    952 F.Supp. 773
     (M.D. Fla. 1996), which adequately sets
    forth the facts and the issues. The case involved the proper amount of damages that
    defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, a fire insurance company, should pay
    upon receiving notice of a bad-faith claim asserted under a Florida statute by plaintiff
    Talat Enterprises, Inc. for a fire at its restaurant. In an unpublished opinion, we
    certified the controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. Talat
    Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., No. 97-2327 (11th Cir. June 23, 1998).
    Magistrate Judge James G. Glazebrook, sitting as the district court by consent
    of the parties, had granted summary judgment to the defendant Aetna on the ground
    that when it paid all of the amounts that were owed under the terms of the insurance
    policy within 60 days of receiving a notice of a bad faith claim, it had corrected “the
    circumstances giving rise to the” bad faith claim, so that no action lay for bad-faith
    non-contractual damages. We certified the question as to whether, in addition to
    contractual damages, an insurance company had to pay “bad faith” damages in order
    to escape liability under the policy under § 624.155(2)(a)&(d), Fla. Stat.(1995)(as a
    condition precedent to suit, claimant must give sixty days written notice of the good
    faith violation to the insurer and the Department of Insurance. “No action shall lie if,
    within 60 days after filing notice, the damages are paid or the circumstances giving
    rise to the violation are corrected.”)
    We certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida:
    2
    If an insured suffered extra-contractual damages prior to
    giving its insurer written notice of a bad faith violation and
    the insurer paid all contractual damages, but none of the
    extra-contractual damages, within sixty days after the
    written notice was filed, has the insurer paid “the damages”
    or corrected “the circumstances giving rise to the
    violation,” as those terms are contemplated by Florida
    Statute § 624.155(2)(d), thereby precluding the insured’s
    first-party bad faith action to recover the extra-contractual
    damages.
    The Florida Supreme Court has now answered the certified question in the
    affirmative, concluding that the “statutory cause of action for extra-contractual
    damages simply never comes into existence until expiration of the sixty-day window
    without the payment of the damages owed under the contract.” Talat Enterprises,
    Inc., v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., _ So. 2d _, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S172 (No. SC 93287)
    (Fla. Mar. 2, 2000). The court stated that the only remedy for Talat was the Florida
    statute and that there “is no remedy until notice is sent by the insured and the insurer
    has the opportunity to ‘cure’ the violation. If the insurer pays the damages during the
    cure period, then there is no remedy.”
    In an extensive opinion, the Court said: “We find United States Magistrate
    Judge Glazebrook’s analysis of this issue to be correct.” Thus, the summary judgment
    for Aetna, based on that analysis, is
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-2327

Filed Date: 5/12/2000

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014