Determining that the trial court erred in finding no coverage whenthe assignee of a policy neglected to offer proof of the assignment, the Florida Court of Appeal reversed in Cent. Square Tarragon LLC v. Great Divide Ins. Co., 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5963 (Fla. Ct. App. april 27, 2011).
The named insured sold a twenty-two acre site to the purchaser and assigned its rights to a property and casualty policy. The purchaser was also added as an additional insured to the policy. Hurricane Wilma struck and destroyed the property. The insurer agreed to pay $770,981. The purchaser sued because the amount did not cover the entire claim.
Prior to the trial, the parties stipulated that: (1) the named insured assigned its rights to the proceeds of the policy to the purchaser; and (2) the insurer tendered payment to the purchaser for the damage. Further, the insurer filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning an underwriting file, arguing that the insurer had already paid proceeds to the purchaser pursuant to the assignment, leaving the sufficiency of the payment as the only issue.
Yet at the close the of the purchaser's case, the insurer moved for a directed verdict, contending that the purchaser had failed to prove the existence of the assignment. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice. The verdict form, however, contained a special interrogatory directed to the issue of the assignment. This led the jury to ultimately determine there was no assignment. The purchaser moved for a new trial, but the motion was denied.
On appeal, the appellate court found the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the purchaser's motion for a new trial. When the trial court instructed the jury and provided a verdict form that questioned whether a valid assignment existed, it impermissibly abandoned the stipulation. Further, the insurer's counsel engaged in gamesmanship by failing to honor the stipulation.
