3 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 451a
Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Insured may maintain claim against insurer based on alleged misrepresentations made by insurer concerning pertinent facts and/or insurance policy provisions related to coverage at issue prior to determination of liability and damages in underlying litigation — Motion to file second amended complaint to add additional count for violation of sections 624.155(1)(a)(1) and 626.9541(1)(i), Florida Statutes, granted
CHARLOTTE BYRD WILKINS, Plaintiff, vs. BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, and FLORIDA INSURANCE ADVISORS, INC. d/b/a STATE NO-FAULT INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a Florida corporation, jointly and severally, Defendants. In the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Civil Division. Case No. MC-94-17204-RF. March 29, 1995. Peter D. Blanc, Judge.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to file Second Amended Complaint. By her motion Plaintiff seeks to add an additional count for violation of Florida Statute 624.155(1)(a)(1) and Section 626.9541(1)(i). Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend on the authority of Blanchard v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, 575 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1991). Blanchard stands for the proposition that an insured’s claim against an uninsured motorist carrier under Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes, for failing to settle an uninsured motorist claim in good faith does not accrue before the conclusion of the underlying litigation. In other words, there can be no determination of bad faith without a prior determination of both liability and the extent of Plaintiff’s damages.
However, in the instant case, Plaintiff’s amended claim is not based upon a bad faith failure to settle, but instead, based upon alleged misrepresentations made by the Defendants concerning pertinent facts and/or insurance policy provisions related to the coverage at issue. This is distinguished from Blanchard because the wrong doing allegedly committed by the Defendant is not conditioned upon the determination of liability, but instead, affects that determination because it affects the terms of the agreement between the parties. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to File Second Amended Complaint is granted. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants shall have ten (10) days from the date of this Order within which to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.
* * *
