18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 988a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1810BOWL
Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Insurer’s second amended motion to dismiss complaint without prejudice granted because underlying litigation for contractual UM benefits is not concluded
TWYMAN E. BOWLING and TERRY BOWLING, Plaintiffs, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Circuit Court, 10th Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Civil Division. Case No. 53-2011-CA-001323-0000-00. Ref. No. 2011-CA-001323, Section 8. August 8, 2011. Honorable Steven L. Selph, Judge. Counsel: Bradford L. Stewart, Frost, Van Den Boom & Smith, P.A., Bartow, for Plaintiffs. David J. Abbey and Allison G. Mawhinney, Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P., St. Petersburg, for Defendant.ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S, STATE FARMMUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINTFOR INSURER BAD FAITH WITHOUT PREJUDICE
THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard on August 8, 2011, upon Defendant’s, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Second Amended Motion to Dismiss Complaint For Insurer Bad Faith Without Prejudice, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being advised in the premises, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that STATE FARM’s Second Amended Motion To Dismiss Complaint For Insurer Bad Faith is hereby GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that STATE FARM’s Second Amended Motion To Dismiss Complaint For Insurer Bad Faith is being granted as the Plaintiffs have failed to set forth ultimate facts in the Complaint establishing the conclusion of the underlying litigation for contractual uninsured motorist insurance benefits against State Farm as required by Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 1991); and Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1270, 1276 (Fla. 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly S242b]. Rather, paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 state that STATE FARM has appealed the Judgment in the underlying case. Hence, STATE FARM has yet to exhaust their appellate remedies and the underlying litigation is not concluded. [Editor’s Note: See 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1487e] Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bourke, 581 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); accord Lexington Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 886 F. Supp. 837, 841-42 (N.D. Fla. 1995); and Barnes v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 WL 5439754 (M.D. Fla. 2010).
