Court Opinion

ID: 9536149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:55:39.424492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:28.110891
License: Public Domain

HOWARD, Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur. The Florida case of Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., supra, stands alone, and for a good reason. It is legally and logically unsound. As was said in Lisiewski v. Countrywide Ins. Co., 75 Mich.App. 631, 255 N.W.2d 714 (1977):
“While plaintiff may well be a third-party beneficiary of the insurance company’s undertaking to indemnify a liability of their insured up to the limits of the insurance policy, it is manifest that plaintiff is not the intended recipient of every obligation undertaken by the insurance company under that contract. An insurance company may have a duty to defend their insured in personal injury actions arising under the dramshop act or as otherwise provided in the insurance contract. Clearly this contractual obligation is not for the benefit of the injured party.” 255 N.W.2d at 717
Other decisions which have rejected Thompson are Cue v. Casualty Corp. of America, 537 P.2d 349 (Okl.App.1975); Bennett v. Slater, 154 Ind.App. 67, 289 N.E.2d 144 (1972); Bean v. Allstate Ins. Co., 285 Md. 572, 403 A.2d 793 (1979). See generally, Annot. 63 A.L.R.3d 677, 701-712 (1975).