Case Name: Dominick ARGIRO and Michelle Argiro, Appellants, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-07-28
Citations: 510 So. 2d 635
Docket Number: No. 86-2835
Parties: Dominick ARGIRO and Michelle Argiro, Appellants, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 510
Pages: 635–636

Head Matter:
Dominick ARGIRO and Michelle Argiro, Appellants, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 86-2835.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 28, 1987.
Barry M. Snyder, North Miami, for appellants.
Kopplow & Flynn and Ronald Kopplow, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Argiro entered into a settlement agreement with a tortfeasor, whereby Argiro received $10,000 for a claim valued at $30,-000 to $40,000. In return, Argiro released the tortfeasor from any further liability. This was contrary to a nonsettlement clause of an uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance policy, issued to Argiro by Progressive Insurance Company (Progressive), as well as a specific request by Progressive asking Argiro not to waive any of its subrogation rights. When Progressive refused to pay Argiro for her damages not covered by the settlement agreement, Argi-ro sued Progressive for benefits pursuant to her insurance policy. The trial court rendered a verdict for Progressive, and Ar-giro appealed.
Argiro contends that Progressive was not prejudiced by the settlement, which waived Progressive's right to pursue a money judgment against the tortfeasor, since Progressive would have been unable to collect a judgment against the tort-feasor. However, the general rule in Florida is that where an insured settles with a third party tortfeasor in violation of a non-settlement provision in a contract for insurance, the insurer is presumed to have been prejudiced, and the burden falls upon the insured to prove otherwise. General Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Taplis, 493 So.2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sinz, 487 So.2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Gould v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 443 So.2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 848 (Fla.1984); Lopez v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 412 So.2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Kaplan v. Phoenix of Hartford Ins. Co., 215 So.2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 220 So.2d 365 (Fla.1969). "A mere denial of prejudice is insufficient." Taplis, 493 So.2d at 33.
Based upon the evidence presented by Argiro there is no reason to believe her contention that the tortfeasor was, and would remain, "judgment-proof." In fact, the record shows that the tortfeasor was a college student with good grades, holding a part-time job. Furthermore, he had both a checking and a savings account in addition to savings bonds. The trial judge was not obliged to accept as an established fact the expert opinion offered by Argiro's witness. Behm v. Division of Administration, 336 So.2d 579 (Fla.1976). Argiro failed to present other evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of prejudice the waiver of subrogation rights caused to Progressive. Consequently, the trial court correctly returned a verdict for Progressive. Accordingly, the judgment under review is
Affirmed.
NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ., concur.