A Partner at Butler, David B. Krouk practices in our casualty defense litigation, coverage defense, and extra-contractual claims departments. David joined the firm in 2001. His practice focuses on representing insurance carriers in the defense of extra-contractual litigation, coverage disputes and the management of difficult pre-suit claim handling scenarios. The focus of his practice is on extra-contractual issues arising from automobile liability claims, including insurer bad faith and uninsured motorist bad faith claims. He also frequently litigates issues pertaining to federal court removal and jurisdictional battles over the venue for litigation of coverage and bad faith claims.
In addition, David advises clients concerning extra-contractual exposure pre-suit. He often assists the carrier in handling difficult matters such as multiple claimant exposures, complex time demands, and excess exposure claims.
David is a frequent lecturer at insurance industry events on issues pertaining to bad faith and insurance coverage. He has also published numerous articles, including "Breaking Down Privileges: Discovery of the Claim File In Florida Bad-Faith."
David earned his Doctor of Jurisprudence degree, with honors, from the University of Florida in 1992. While at the University of Florida law school, he was a member of the Moot Court Team. He also earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from Emory University in 1989. He is admitted to the Florida bar, all Federal courts in Florida, the United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.
- Emory University
Bachelor of Arts
- University of Florida
Doctor of Jurisprudence
- Defense Research Institute (DRI)
- Property and Liability Research Bureau
- Florida Courts (Northern, Middle and Southern Districts)
- Florida State Courts
- United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- United States Supreme Court
Aboy v. State Farm, 394 Fed. Appx. 655 (11th Cir. 2010) - opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of insurance company in third-party bad faith case.
Bell v. State Farm, 30 So.3d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) - opinion affirming dismissal of fraud and bad faith claims against insurance company.
Capron v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1837753 (M.D. Fla. 2010) - order dismissing coverage claim against insurer based on pollution exclusion contained in CGL policy.
Founders Ins. Co. v. Tome, 878 F.Supp.2d 1266 (M.D. Fla. 2012) - order granting summary judgment in favor of insurer finding no duty to defend or indemnify under liquor liability policy.
Garbutt v. Lafarnara, 795 So.2d 957 (Fla. 2001) - opinion reversing seven-figure judgment and holding that motion for mistrial made after plaintiff's improper closing argument preserved the error for review.
Kropilak v. 21st Century Security Ins. Co., 806 F.3d 1062 (11th Cir. 2015) - affirming jury verdict in favor of the insurance company defendant in a third party bad faith action, and holding that an insurance company has no good faith duty to enter into a consent judgment agreement or "Cunningham" agreement in excess of the policy limits.
Lahey v. State Farm, 2007 WL 2029334 (M.D. Fla. 2007) - order denying motion to remand bad faith case to state court, finding that bad faith claim amended to previous uninsured motorist claim was independently removable to federal court.
Mendez v. Unitrin Direct, 622 F.Supp.2d 1233 (M.D. Fla. 2007) - order granting new trial in third-party bad faith case, vacating excess judgment against insurance company.
Welford v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 190 F.Supp.3d 1085 (N.D. Fla. 2016) - granting summary judgment in favor of insurance company defendant in a third party bad faith case, finding that without clear liability on the insured, the insurer does not have an affirmative duty to initiate settlement negotiations.
March 25, 2010
PUBLICATIONBreaking Down Privileges: Discovery of the Claim File In Florida Bad-Faith Actions
Read More »
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 23, #22 (March 25, 2010). © 2010
April 16, 2003
PUBLICATIONThe Current State of Comparative Bad Faith
Read More »
In most every jurisdiction, the basis for a claim of insurer bad faith is the recognition of a duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in any contract of insurance. See, e.g., Boston Old Colony v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980). The focus in such cases is usually the question of whether or not the insurer has violated that duty. Inevitably, the question arises as to whether or not the actions of the insured can be considered bad faith and, if so, whether such actions can be raised as an affirmative defense to a claim of insurer bad faith.
October 23, 2002
Read More »
Insurers find nothing more frustrating than paying for unearned indemnification dollars. In a first-party context this may result from unreported values causing a deflated premium. In other words, the insurer's actual exposures require more premium than charged -- usually over many policy years. In a third-party context this unearned protection is the result of an excess judgment that the liability carrier is required to pay. In most jurisdictions this is the consequence of the liability insurer's failure to settle within policy limits when it had the opportunity to do so.
April 18, 2001
PUBLICATIONResolution of the Underlying Claim as a Prerequisite to Bad Faith
Read More »
In every jurisdiction that has considered the issue, a claim for bad faith does not accrue until there has been a final determination of the underlying claim for insurance benefits or third party damages. Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 913 P.2d 1092 (Ariz. 1996); Blanchard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1991). Thus, before a plaintiff can sue an insurance company for bad faith, he must first finally resolve the claim which he contends the insurance company failed to settle in good faith. What constitutes a resolution of that claim varies with the type of claim asserted and the jurisdiction in which it is brought, but it can generally be broken down into three categories: excess judgment, settlement of the underlying claim, and judgment below policy limits.