State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we grant the petition as to the abatement, because the final determination of coverage and damages for the underlying claim has not been made, which must precede a statutory bad faith action.”
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United Automobile Insurance Company and James Baylis v. Riverside Medical Associates, Inc., a/a/o Normandel Burke, Ismail Sarabi and Jorge De La O (fladistctapp, 2015-03-04)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United Automobile Insurance Company and James Baylis v. Riverside Medical Associates, Inc., a/a/o Normandel Burke, Ismail Sarabi and Jorge De La O (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we grant the petition as to the abatement, because the final determination of coverage and damages for the underlying claim has not been made, which must precede a statutory bad faith action.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Progressive Select Insurance Company v. Linnette Ampudia and Juan Carlos Moreno Daza
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dove v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company
M.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). 3 There is at least one other strong argument in favor of dismissal over abatement.
cited Cited as authority (rule) HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. v. MICHAEL MAHADY and NICOLE MAHADY
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); see also State Farm v. O’Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adrian Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (2×)
Fla. · 2016 · confidence medium
The Fourth District held in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So.3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), that where a bad faith action is joined with a claim for UM benefits, “the appropriate step is to abáte the bad faith action until coverage and damages have been determined.” Further, as the First District Court of Appeal has observed, “the trial court has authority to abate the statutory claims, rather than to dismiss them, if it appears to the court that abatement would be in the interest of judicial economy.” Vanguard Fire & Cas.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gianassi v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
M.D. Fla. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So.3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quashing trial court’s order denying motion to abate bad faith claim and stating that “[wjhere causes of action for both the underlying damages and bad faith are brought in the same action, the appropriate step is to abate the bad faith action until coverage and damages have been determined.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois v. Christine A. Beare
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So.3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), we held that where a first party bad faith action is *617 joined with a claim for UM benefits, the appropriate relief is to abate the bad faith action until liability and damages under the policy have been established.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joseph Cammarata and Judy Cammarata v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quashing order denying motion to abate bad faith action “because the final determination of coverage and damages for the underlying claim has not been made, which must precede a statutory bad faith action”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Rader
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So.3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (granting certiorari “petition as to the abatement, because the final determination of coverage and damages for the underlying claim has not been made, which must precede a statutory bad faith action.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Geico General Insurance Co. v. Harvey
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So.3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), this court held that “[wjhere causes of action for both the underlying damages and bad faith are brought in the same action, the appropriate step is to abate the bad faith action until coverage and damages have been determined.” Tranche se, like many of the published decisions in this area of the law, pertained to a first party bad faith claim arising from an action for uninsured motorist coverage.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Aloni
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
State Farm also cites our recent decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So.3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), which explained that a party is not entitled to discovery related to the claim file or the insurer’s business practices regarding the handling of claims until the obligation to provide coverage and damages has been determined.
cited Cited as authority (rule) General Star Indemnity Co. v. Atlantic Hospitality of Florida, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So.3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Chernick
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So.3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation
v.
Neil TRANCHESE and Patricia Tranchese
No. 4D10-2940.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov 24, 2010.
49 So. 3d 809
Anthony J. Russo and John W. Weih-muller of Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig L.L.P., Tampa, for petitioner., Philip D. Parrish of Philip D. Parrish, P.A., Miami, and Henry A. Seiden of The Seiden Law Firm, West Palm Beach, for respondents.
Gerber, Gross, Warner.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
WARNER, J.

State Farm petitions for writ of certiorari to quash two orders of the trial court, one of which denied a motion to abate a cause of action for violation of section 624.155(1), Florida Statutes, for failing to settle a claim in good faith on uninsured motorist coverage, and the other of which compelled State Farm to respond to requests for admissions regarding its claims handling procedures and business practices. The cause of action for bad faith was one of multiple claims, including ones for determination of liability and the amount of damages sustained as a result of[*810] two automobile accidents suffered by State Farm’s insured Neil Tranchese and his wife, Patricia Tranchese.[1] We grant the petition as to the abatement, because the final determination of coverage and damages for the underlying claim has not been made, which must precede a statutory bad faith action. See Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Shockley, 951 So.2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Where causes of action for both the underlying damages and bad faith are brought in the same action, the appropriate step is to abate the bad faith action until coverage and damages have been determined. See Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla.2005). As to the requests for admissions regarding business practices and claims policy procedures, we grant the petition, holding that until the obligation to provide coverage and damages has been determined, a party is not entitled to discovery related to the claims filed or to the insurer’s business policies or practices regarding handling of claims. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O’Hearn, 975 So.2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

GROSS, C.J., and GERBER, J., concur.
1

State Farm paid the amount it claims was Neil Tranchese’s UM coverage. Although Mr. Tranchese maintains that he is not making a claim for his own injuries, that is contradicted by the allegations of the count in which he claims that his damages exceeded what State Farm claimed was its UM limits. Tranchese claims that his UM limits were unlimited and contends that State Farm misrepresented the policy to him. Without knowing the extent of his damages or the coverage, one could not determine whether State Farm breached any duty with respect to the settling of his claim.