Court Opinion

ID: 9671485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:37:27.912909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:10.229001
License: Public Domain

White, P.J.,
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in part I of the majority opinion.
I would, however, remand for further consideration of the agents’ request for sanctions against the insurance companies for raising a frivolous defense. While I agree with the majority that an argument can be made that the defense was not frivolous,1 the record does not support a conclusion that the trial court made such a determination. Rather, it appears that the agents’ request for costs and sanctions under the various court rules against plaintiffs and the insurance companies was denied in a summary fashion, with little discussion and no explanation. At the October 1993 hearing, the focus was on the entry of the order of dismissal, not the agents’ entitlement to costs. At the motion for rehearing, the court simply found it had committed no error. Further, because all requests for costs were summarily denied together and the court’s denial of sanctions against plaintiffs is being reversed by this Court, fairness counsels that the trial court give full consideration to the request that the insurance companies pay sanctions as well.

 There is also support for the agents’ postion that the defense was, in fact, frivolous.