Title: Colleen M. Steadman v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Et Al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC05-693
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 25, 2006

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC05-693 
____________ 
 
COLLEEN M. STEADMAN,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 
Respondents. 
 
[May 18, 2006] 
 
LEWIS, J. 
 
We have for review Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Steadman, 895 So. 2d 
434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), in which the Second District Court of Appeal relied upon 
the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Inservices, Inc. v. Aguilera, 837 
So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), quashed, 905 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2005).  At the time 
the Second District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Steadman, Inservices 
was pending review in this Court.  Obviously, the district court did not have the 
benefit of our subsequent decision which was rendered on June 16, 2005, in which 
we quashed and remanded the Third District’s decision in Inservices on the basis 
that the complaint stated a viable cause of action in tort based on conduct which 
 
 
- 2 -
allegedly occurred during the claim process because the alleged conduct there was 
to the level of an independent intentional tort.  See Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 
So. 2d 84, 93 (Fla. 2005).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; 
Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981).  
 
The petition for review is granted.  On authority of our decision in Aguilera 
v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2005), the decision under review is quashed, 
and this case is remanded to the Second District Court of Appeal for 
reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Aguilera.  In quashing 
and remanding this decision we do not reach the merits of the instant matter and 
express no opinion as to whether a valid cause of action exists.  
 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, C.J., and ANSTEAD, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur. 
WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which BELL, J., concurs. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
WELLS, J., dissenting. 
 
I dissent from quashing the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in 
this case. 
 
The majority states that it does this “[o]n authority of our decision in 
Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2005),” and remands the case to 
the Second District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in 
 
 
- 3 -
Aguilera.  Then the majority says, “In quashing and remanding this decision we do 
not reach the merits of the instant matter and express no opinion as to whether a 
valid cause of action exists.”  In the context of this case, that does not make sense 
to me.  I am concerned that it will be confusing to the Second District and others 
who read the majority opinion.  When this Court’s majority opinion is read and 
applied to the decision of the Second District in this case, I find it to be clear that 
the decision of the Second District that there could be no common law cause of 
action in this case was correct in view of the Second District already having 
decided that the only claim is based entirely upon delay. 
 
In this Court’s majority decision in Aguilera, this Court said: 
Today, we do not alter and recognize the continued viability of the 
cases holding that the mere delay of payments or simple bad faith in 
handling workers’ compensation claims are not actionable torts, and 
that employees are not permitted to transform such simple delays into 
actionable torts cognizable in the circuit court. 
Id. at 91.  In the Second District’s decision in this case, the Second District said: 
 
Ms. Steadman’s claim is based entirely on Liberty Mutual’s 
delay in paying the benefits awarded to her by the JCC.  This claim 
does not fall within any exception to the statutory immunity afforded 
the carrier by the Act.  Accordingly, we reverse and remand with 
directions to the trial court to dismiss Ms. Steadman’s complaint. 
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 895 So. 2d 434, 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).  
Since this is entirely a delay claim, it can only logically follow that in applying the 
majority Aguilera decision, the decision made by the Second District is consistent 
 
 
- 4 -
with this Court’s Aguilera opinion.  This Court must respect the determination 
made by the Second District that this is entirely a delay claim. 
 
Therefore, rather than quashing and remanding this case so that the Second 
District can reaffirm its earlier decision, this Court should simply affirm the 
Second District, noting that this Court quashed the Third District’s Aguilera 
decision,1 which the Second District referred to in its opinion.  The majority could 
directly state that it was affirming the Second District’s decision, but not its 
reasoning, and was affirming based upon this Court’s decision in Aguilera. 
 
In the alternative, I would discharge jurisdiction.  The decision of the 
Second District is consistent with the Aguilera decision of this Court, and there is 
no need in this case to make a point of the fact that this Court quashed the Third 
District’s Aguilera decision. 
BELL, J., concurs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 
 
1.  Inservices, Inc. v. Aguilera, 837 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). 
 
 
- 5 -
 
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct 
Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
Second District - Case No. 2D04-1428 
 
 
(Hillsborough County) 
 
Matthew D. Valdes, P.A., Orlando, Florida 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Steven L. Brannock and Maegen E. Peek of Holland and Knight, LLP, Tampa, 
Florida, Chris N. Kolos and Christopher Annunziato of Holland and Knight, LLP, 
Orlando, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent