Blanchard v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company

575 So. 2d 1289 (1991)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Blanchard v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company

Florida Supreme Court
575 So. 2d 1289 (1991)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Donald Blanchard (plaintiff) was permanently injured when he was struck by a vehicle driven by an uninsured motorist. Blanchard had an insurance policy through State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance (State Farm) (defendant) that included coverage for damages caused by uninsured motorists. State Farm refused to pay Blanchard’s uninsured-motorist claim for the accident. Blanchard then filed a negligence claim in state court against the uninsured motorist and sought to compel State Farm to pay out under Blanchard’s uninsured-motorist policy. The trial court ruled that the uninsured motorist was negligent and ordered State Farm to pay out the full policy coverage amount. State Farm did not appeal the state court decision. Blanchard then sued State Farm in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction, arguing that, as defined by Florida law, State Farm denied his uninsured-motorist claim in bad faith. State Farm challenged, arguing that Blanchard’s bad-faith claim should have been raised in the state court action, not in a separate federal court action. The district court dismissed Blanchard’s claim. Blanchard appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. On joint motion by State Farm and Blanchard, the Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court about whether a claim that an insurance company denied uninsured-motorist coverage in bad faith could accrue before the issuance of a formal determination regarding the insurance company’s liability to pay out under the policy.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Barkett, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership