Opinion ID: 76737
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the arbitration proceeding satisfy Dadeland's condition precedent?

Text: 25 To bring a bad-faith refusal-to-settle claim, Florida requires, as a condition precedent, that the plaintiff can allege that there has been a determination of the insured's damage. Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, (M.D.Fla.1996), aff'd, 217 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir.2000). See also Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Fla.1991). 26 Dadeland contends that the arbitration award's finding that [t]he Surety is bound to [the arbitration] award to the extent that [Walbridge] is obligated under the award and its defenses are denied, R2-71, Ex. 23 at 5, satisfies this condition precedent. Dadeland argues that the district court's analysis ignores the purpose of the condition precedent: to provide evidence that the insured had a valid claim against the insurer, which the insurer should have settled when the claim was first made. See Brookins v. Goodson, 640 So.2d 110, 112 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (noting that the purpose of requiring the condition precedent is to show that the insured had a valid claim). Dadeland asserts that the arbitration award serves this purpose because it shows that Dadeland had a valid claim against the surety for repairs made necessary by Walbridge's deficiencies. The district court disagreed and found that the arbitration proceeding was not a prior adjudication because the arbitrator did not make a specific finding that the surety had breached its duty under the bond. 3 27