Title: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC03-302
____________
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES (NO. 03-01)
[June 26, 2003]
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil)
(Committee) petitions this Court to amend the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in
Civil Cases.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
On February 21, 2003, the Committee filed a Supplemental Report proposing
amendments to current civil jury instruction MI 3, Insurer's Bad Faith.  Prior to
submitting this report to the Court, the Committee published an initial and a revised
version of its proposals in the May 15, 2002, and the October 15, 2002, editions of
-2-
The Florida Bar News, respectively.  Several comments were received after each
publication and were considered by the Committee prior to submission of its report
to the Court.
The end product of the Committee's proposal is a completely revised
instruction on insurer's bad faith claims.  The revised instruction merges MI 3.1
("Insurer's Bad Faith Failure to Settle Within Policy Limits") and MI 3.2 ("Insurer's
Bad Faith Failure to Offer Up to Policy Limits to Settle Above Policy Limits") into
one instruction.  It also replaces a portion of the current instruction directing the jury
to award damages in a sum certain with a statement that if the jury finds for the
claimant, "the court will award damages in an amount allowable under Florida law." 
Finally, it adds provisions addressing the issues of punitive damages and damages
for mental distress.
Upon consideration of the Committee's report, we hereby authorize the
publication and use of the revised instruction as set forth in the appendix attached to
this opinion.  In doing so, we express no opinion on the correctness of the
instruction and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither
requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal correctness
of the instruction. We further caution all interested parties that the notes and
comments associated with the instruction reflect only the opinion of the Committee
-3-
and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness
or applicability. The instruction as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when
this opinion becomes final.  New language is indicated by underlining, and deletions
are indicated by struck-through type.
It is so ordered.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and
BELL, JJ., concur.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS INSTRUCTION.
Original Proceeding - Standard Jury Instructions - Civil Cases
The Honorable Chris W. Altenbernd, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard
Jury Instructions (Civil), Tampa, Florida; and Tracy Raffles Gunn, Chair, Supreme
Court Reporting Committee, of Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A., Tampa,
Florida,
for Petitioner
-4-
MI 3
INSURER'S BAD FAITH
INTRODUCTORY COMMENT
MI 3.1 or 3.2 is applicable when the particular matter in issue is the insurance company's failure
to settle a claim within its policy limits or its failure to offer up to its policy limits to settle above the policy
limits. These charges do not exhaust the subject. Other charges are necessary if liability is asserted for
the insurance company's violation of some other duty, e.g., “to advise the insured of settlement
opportunities, to advise as to the probable outcome of the litigation, to warn of the possibility of an
excess judgment, and to advise the insured of any steps he might take to avoid same.” Boston Old
Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So.2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1980).
MI 3.1
INSURER'S BAD FAITH FAILURE TO
SETTLE WITHIN POLICY LIMITS
a.
Issue:
The issue for your determination is whether (defendant) acted in bad faith in failing to
settle the claim [of] (name) [against] (insured). An insurance company acts in bad faith in failing
to settle a claim against its [policyholder] [insured] within its policy limits when, under all of the
circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its [its
policyholder] [its insured] [an excess carrier] and with due regard for [his] [her] [its] [their]
interests.
b.
Burden of proof:
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of (claimant), your
verdict should be for (defendant). However, if the greater weight of the evidence does support
the claim of (claimant), your verdict should be for (claimant). “The greater Greater weight of the
evidence” means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in
-5-
the case.
If you find for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of damages. But, if you find
for (claimant), then
a.
When claimant is original plaintiff:
you will award (claimant) the sum of $______.
b.
When claimant is original insured person or excess carrier:
you will award (claimant) the sum of $______, which is [the amount with interest (insured)
has paid] [the amount (insured) is obligated to pay] in satisfaction of the judgment.
c.
When claimant's damages include claim for costs and attorney's fees:
you should also award such additional amount as the greater weight of the evidence
shows will adequately compensate (claimant) for costs and attorney's fees necessarily and
reasonably incurred by (claimant) in (identify prior proceedings in defending against claim or in
resisting the judgment). You should not consider or make any award on account of (claimant's)
costs or attorney's fees incurred in the present lawsuit. These will be determined and awarded
by the court later.
Damages: 
1.  Cases without claims for mental distress: 
If your verdict is for (claimant), the court will award damages in an amount allowable
under Florida law.
2.  Cases with claims for mental distress:*
*Use this instruction only if the court determines that there is a sufficient predicate to
support a claim for mental distress.  See Time Ins. Co. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389 (Fla.
1998).  The committee takes no position on whether claims for mental distress may be
available in other situations.
If your verdict is for (claimant), you will next determine (claimant’s) claim for mental
distress.  On (claimant’s) claim for mental distress, the issues for your determination are: 
Whether (defendant’s) [denial of] [failure to timely pay] the claim resulted in (insured’s)
failure to receive necessary or timely health care; and if so
-6-
Whether this failure caused or aggravated (insured’s) [medical] [psychiatric] condition;
and if so
Whether (insured) suffered mental distress related to the condition or the aggravation of
the condition.
Burden of Proof - Mental Distress:
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of (claimant) for mental
distress, your verdict should be for (defendant) on this issue.  However, if the greater weight of
the evidence does support the claim of (claimant) for mental distress, your verdict should be for
(claimant) on this issue. 
Damages - Mental Distress:
If you find for (claimant) on the claim for mental distress, then you should award
(claimant) an amount of damages that the evidence shows will fairly compensate claimant for
[his][or][her] [loss][injury][or][damage] as a result of the mental distress.  Your damage award
should be for mental distress only.  The court will enter judgment for other damages to which
(claimant) is entitled under the law.
d.  
Punitive damages:*
*If a claim for punitive damages is made pursuant to section 624.155, Florida
Statutes, substitute the following instruction for the instructions located at PD-
Punitive Damages, PD1a(2) or PD2a.  For common law punitive damages claims,
see PD-Punitive Damages.
Punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and convincing evidence* that:
1.
the acts giving rise to the violation occurred with such frequency as to indicate a
general business practice; and 
2.
these acts were willful, wanton, and malicious, or in reckless disregard for the
rights of the [insured] [beneficiary].
* Note: The Committee has assumed that the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof
provided in Florida Statutes section 768.725 applies to punitive damages claims made pursuant to
Florida Statutes section 624.155.
Comment on MI 3.1
-7-
See Campbell v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 306 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1975); Butchikas
v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 343 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1977), affirming 313 So. 2d 101.  MI 3.1 does not
distinguish statutory claims from common law claims or first party claims from third party claims.  See
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaForet, 658 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1995).