Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

May 13, 2020 | Blog Post| It's a Policy, Not a Payday Loan: The Voluntary Payments Provision Deconstructed

From time to time, the issue of whether an insurer has a duty to reimburse a payment made by an insured without the permission of the insurer is analyzed by a court.  A standard ISO form in a Commercial General Liability policy contains the following, or similar provision, “No insured will, except at the insured’s own cost, voluntarily make a payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense, other than for first aid, without our consent.”  How have Florida courts analyzed this provision?  This blog discusses whether settlement agreements entered without an insurer’s consent, repair costs that were not approved by an insurer and pre-tender defense costs are subject to this provision.

Initially, it is clear that if an insurer erroneously declines to provide a defense to an insured, the voluntary payment provision has no effect on whether an insurer is required to pay post-tender defense costs.  Rolyn Cos., Inc. v. R & J Sales of Texas, Inc., 671 F.Supp. 2d 1314, 1327 (S.D. Fla. 2009), approved 412 Fed. App’x 252 (11th Cir. 2011).  Additionally, an insured may avoid the voluntary payment provision by making a payment involuntary for circumstances outside of its control such as an immediate response to protect the insured’s legal interests.  Id.  However, if an insured enters into a settlement agreement with a claimant, without the approval of the insurer, either before notice is provided to the insurer or while being defended by the insurer, no coverage is owed.  Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Frankel Enter., 287 Fed. App’x 775, 778 (11th Cir. 2008); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Donnelly, 2009 WL 3584329, *3 (M.D. Fla. October 28, 2009) (not reported).

Additionally, courts hold that the voluntary payment provision excuses an insurer from paying for costs of repair that were not approved by the insurer.  In Rolyn, the Stonebridge Gardens condominium community - with 16 buildings, over 400 individual units and 4 condominium associations - was damaged and subsequently condemned due to Hurricane Wilma.  Id. at 1316.  Two of the associations retained Rolyn Companies, Inc. (“Rolyn”), a general contractor, to repair the buildings.  Rolyn, in turn, retained R & J Sales of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Precision Restoration and Roofing (“Precision”) to repair the roofs.  Id.  Shortly after Precision began to repair the roof on one building, it rained heavily and damaged a building.  Id

Rolyn was sued by a unit owner and Rolyn tendered its defense and indemnity to its insurer, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“Crum & Forster”), and to Precision’s insurer, Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”).  Id.  Crum & Forster agreed to provide a defense to Rolyn; however, Rolyn chose to repair the interiors of the all the units without Crum & Forster’s permission.  Id.  Rolyn then filed a lawsuit against Precision, Crum & Forster, and Admiral for damages and declaratory relief.  Id. at 1317.

Crum & Forster filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the costs that Rolyn incurred were made voluntarily in violation of the voluntary payment provision.  Id. at 1326.  Although courts generally enforce voluntary-payment provisions, Rolyn argued that the payments were not made voluntarily because it was facing a lawsuit and Rolyn was responsible for the acts of its subcontractors.  Id. at 1329.  The court disagreed and explained:

According to the plain language of the policy, this provision applies, i.e., Rolyn must obtain consent before making a payment, even if Rolyn is sued.  If payments may be made voluntarily in the event of being sued, a fortiori they may be made voluntarily at the threat of being sued.  This of course does not mean that all payments made on being sued are “voluntary;” an insured may incur costs if it must respond immediately to protect its legal interests, such as to avoid default.  See Jamestown Builders, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d at 518.  But nothing here shows such a need.  To the contrary, Rolyn worked with Precision for months, giving it “every opportunity to return to the Project and fix the problems caused by its defective workmanship.” (Pl.'s Opp'n 2).

Because Rolyn did not obtain Crum & Forster’s consent prior to making payments and incurring costs repairing the building and because Crum & Forster did not wrongfully refuse to defend Rolyn, no coverage was owed.  Id. at 1328.  See also, Hathaway Dev. Co., Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 274 Fed. App’x 787, 791 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding no coverage existed because the insured repaired defects and made payments to residents without the insurer’s consent).

Another issue where the voluntary payment clause is analyzed is whether it applies to pre-tender defense costs.  In EmbroidMe.com v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 845 F.3d 1099, 1102 (11th Cir. 2017), EmbroideMe.com, Inc. (“EmbroidMe”) was sued for copyright infringement.  EmbroideMe chose not to immediately tender the claim to its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company (“Travelers”), but instead hired its own lawyers and litigated the case for 18 months.  Id.  EmbroideMe subsequently tendered its defense and indemnity to Travelers. Id. Travelers agreed to provide a defense, but it refused to reimburse EmbroideMe for its pre-tender legal bills.  Id.  EmbroideMe argued that it was entitled to reimbursement for pre-tender defense costs because Travelers did not notify EmbroideMe of this coverage defense within 30 days of receipt of the tender as required by the Claims Administration Statute.  Id.

The court disagreed with EmbroideMe and held that the insurance policy stated that EmbroideMe would not be reimbursed by Travelers for any expenses it elected to incur and pay without the consent of Travelers.  Id. at 1106.  The court explained:

In short, the clear language of the policy - if not common sense - would alert even the most unsophisticated insured to the reality that, if sued, it could not expect its insurer to reimburse it for attorney's fees it unilaterally incurred unless the insured had first obtained Travelers' permission to incur those expenses.

Id.  The court further held that the insurer’s denial of pre-tender defense costs did not constitute a coverage defense for which the 30-day timeframe in the Claims Administration Statute applied.  Id. at 1110.

In that case, Travelers agreed to defend EmbroideMe after it received its tender; thus, Travelers did not breach the insurance policy.   Therefore, Travelers could enforce the voluntary payment provision in the policy to deny pre-tender defense costs incurred by EmbroideMe.com.  However, an issue remains regarding whether the voluntary payment provision precludes pre-tender defense costs if an insurer denies a defense to an insured, but it is later held that the insurer owed a defense to the insured.   Although this question has yet to be answered, based on the holding in EmbroideMe.com, a court would still likely hold that an insurer would not owe pre-tender costs.  A tender provides notice to an insurer of a claim, and its potential duty to defend should not begin until notice is provided, regardless whether a court later determines that the carrier had a duty to defend.  A carrier cannot breach its duties under a policy until it receives a tender from its insured, additional insured, or omnibus insured.

These are just a few examples of the issues surrounding the voluntary payment provision in a typical commercial general liability policy and how courts analyze such a provision.


J. Blake Hunter | SENIOR ASSOCIATE

Casualty Defense Litigation, Extra-Contractual and Third-Party Coverage

(850) 894-4111 | TALLAHASSEE

September 08, 2020 Blog PostDoes the Pollution Exclusion Bar Coverage for Injuries Arising out of Viruses and Bacteria?

In policies without a specific bacteria or virus exclusion, there is an arguable basis for insurers to rely on a pollution exclusion to exclude coverage for claims for bodily injury resulting from an occurrence involving bacteria or viral “contaminants...

Read More »
June 25, 2020 Blog PostButler's Thursday Tips | Little Black Box

Join us for this week's Thursday Tip as attorney Paola Solano discusses the use of ECMs in Third-Party vehicle claims.

Read More »
June 19, 2020 Blog PostIs Amazon a Seller? An Issue Primed for State Courts

The tide is turning as another federal court declares that Amazon is responsible for third-party products purchased on its website. On January 7, 2020, the Southern District of Texas in McMillian v. Amazon.com joined the Third Circuit court of Appeals and the Western District of Wisconsin in finding that Amazon can be a “seller” under the applicable state product liability statutes.

Read More »
June 01, 2020 Blog Post13 Ways That COVID-19 Will Change the Insurance Industry

Some people will have permanent complications from the Coronavirus , which will create a new population with pre-existing conditions. This may result in either more “eggshell Plaintiffs” or in an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition in an MVA...

Read More »
May 06, 2020 Blog PostMembers Only: The Eleventh Circuit Restricts Membership to the "Illusory Coverage" Club to Narrow Set of Circumstances

The Doctrine of Illusory Coverage is a common law doctrine that Florida courts have confirmed is a part of Florida’s insurance law. See e.g., Zucker for BankUnited Financial Corp. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co., 856 F.3d 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 2017)...

Read More »
April 02, 2020 Blog PostDuke v. Hoch Standard Survives Challenge in Eleventh Circuit

In a recent decision, QBE Specialty Ins. Co. v. Scrap Inc., Nos. 18-13926 and 19-13894, 2020 WL 1228648 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the insured failed to carry the burden of proving allocation of damages between covered and uncovered claims...

Read More »
February 28, 2020 Blog PostInformation or Indemnity: Do Certificates of Insurance Grant Insured Status?

Often, a person or entity that is attempting to claim additional insured status under the insurance policy of another will rely on a “Certificate of Insurance” that was issued by the named insured’s agent...

Read More »
February 26, 2019 Blog PostTHE MARKOVITS DECISION: CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Recently, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal held that for purposes of determining the timeliness of a proposal for settlement, the complaint is considered served on the insurer when process is served upon the statutory agent, Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, and not when process is forwarded by the Chief Financial Officer to the insurer.  Markovits v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) rehr’g denied (Feb. 5, 2018).

Read More »
December 14, 2018 Blog PostDrone Accident Excluded Under CGL Policy's Aircraft Exclusion

In the most recent edition of our book, Butler on Drones, we reported that ISO has issued specific exclusions for unmanned aircraft for inclusion into CGL policies, but it was an open question whether a CGL policy’s standard aircraft exclusion already excluded coverage for liability arising from the use of a drone. A California federal district court has now weighed in on the question – the first to do so, as far as we are aware. And we like the answer.

Read More »
October 10, 2018 Blog PostRecent Federal Court Decision May Alter the Reservation of Rights Landscape in South Carolina

Only 15 months ago, in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., the South Carolina Supreme Court fundamentally changed the reservation of rights landscape in South Carolina. Since Harleysville, two questions have remained: When must an insurer issue a reservation of rights letter to avoid waiving its rights, and what level of explanation is sufficient to avoid waiver?

Read More »
September 19, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence: Civil Authority and Ingress/Egress Coverage

The hurricane may trigger civil authority or ingress/egress coverage for businesses that are not directly damaged but lose income because they cannot access their operations for a period of time due to a governmental evacuation order.

Read More »
September 10, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence is aiming for the Carolinas

Once Hurricane Florence passes through the region, insurance professionals can expect a deluge of claims activity. While both North Carolina and South Carolina have felt the effects of recent Hurricanes Irene and Matthew, for example, many insurance professionals have limited familiarity with the particularized coverage issues which may arise in both states. Navigating the laws of both states, which can be both parallel and disparate, is going to be important in Florence’s aftermath.    

Read More »
September 01, 2017 Blog PostHurricane Hindsight is 20/20

It took years of depositions and other discovery to realize that that most of my 2004-2005 hurricane condominium association claims were much simpler to defend than I thought.   The center of gravity of these claims was the proper calculation of Actual Cash Value (ACV).

Read More »
August 09, 2017 Blog PostTO FEE OR NOT TO FEE, THAT IS THE QUESTION: THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT FINDS COVERAGE FOR PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT SANCTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF UNDER AN AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY POLICY IN MACEDO II

Due to its holding in Macedo II, the Florida Supreme Court created a situation where, arguably, many auto policies now provide coverage for attorney’s fees and expenses awarded against an insured following an adverse verdict triggering the penalties under a proposal for settlement.

Read More »
August 08, 2017 Blog PostHoly Harleysville! – The Rules Governing RORs, Intervention, and More in South Carolina Have Just Changed

For insurers, litigating third party coverage disputes in South Carolina has always proved formidable.  Insurers can be liable for “bad faith” even if there is no coverage; they may be required to pay an insured’s attorney’s fees if the insurer commences a coverage action against its insured and loses ; and extra-contractual claims may proceed simultaneously with a breach of contract claim.

Read More »
July 25, 2017 Blog PostThat Sinking Feeling: Sinkholes, Florida Law, and Some Questions Raised by The Recent Collapse in Land O' Lakes

The recent catastrophic ground cover collapse in Land O’Lakes attributed to a sinkhole highlights the unique aspects of Florida geology and the impact it can have on the risks faced by building owners and their insurers. In central and western Florida, the land generally consists of a layer of limestone topped by layers of clays and sands. The limestone is a vestige of the shells and skeletons of marine life deposited during prehistoric periods when that layer was at the bottom of shallow seas. Over time, limestone was formed and covered by layers of silts and sands. The limestone is slowly dissolved by groundwater, and constitutes part of the aquifer.

Read More »
March 07, 2017 Blog PostFederal Diversity Jurisdiction: Proving Citizenship of Limited Liability Companies

Jurisdiction gives a federal court the power to hear a case. Jurisdiction matters at the outset of a lawsuit. It matters during discovery. It even matters after summary judgment. Jurisdiction matters because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

Read More »
February 16, 2017 Blog PostSurplus Insurers, Too, Can Rely on the Application to Interpret Policy

Section 627.419 of the Florida Statutes provides that “[e]very insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set forth in the policy and as amplified, extended, or modified by any application therefor or any rider or endorsement thereto.”  This statute has not applied to surplus lines insurers since the “Zota-fix” legislation of 2009, which generally exempted surplus lines insurers from Chapter 627.

Read More »
September 08, 2015 Blog PostNJ: Insurers Still On The Hook To Pay Innocent Parties Under Fraudulent Policies

The decision offers further guidance in the somewhat inconsistent world of rescission and automobile policy statutes, which – when accounting for the application misrepresentation, policy, and statutes – can be a tricky process.

Read More »
April 08, 2015 Blog PostFourth Circuit Sets Stage For Interpreting Contingent Business Interruption

CBI insurance provides coverage for loss of sales or revenue sustained when business is interrupted due to property damage that occurs away from the insured premises and, consequently, disrupts the flow of goods and services from/to a supplier or customer (referred to as the “dependent” or “contributing” properties). There are a limited number of cases discussing issues relating to CBI insurance; and the Fourth Circuit’s ruling provides greater clarity as to what constitutes a “direct” supplier, which is a common...

Read More »
April 06, 2015 Blog PostIt's a "Storm Surge" -- not a "Flood"!

Both parties cited to the SEACOR Holdings, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 635 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 2011) case. The SEACOR case held that flood limits did not apply to Hurricane Katrina-generated water damage. In the SEACOR policy, there were definitions for flood, windstorm and named windstorm. The definition of windstorm and named windstorm did not include the phrase “storm surge,” but the definition of flood included wind-driven water. The SEACOR court held that all damage caused by Katrina was the result of a named windstorm...

Read More »
September 26, 2014 Blog PostWhen It Comes to Sinkholes, Contracts, Statutes and Regulations Do Matter

On August 21, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Shelton v. Liberty Mutual, Case number 13-15371 / D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-02064-JSM-AEP. This decision confirms that the statutory definitions for structural damage under the May 17, 2011 amendments to the Florida sinkhole statutes apply to property policies issued after those amendments were enacted. The court’s order reversed the positions taken by the District Court that seemed bent on plotting a new course for Florida jurisprudence.

Read More »
July 24, 2014 Blog PostThe Emperor's New Property Damage?

For many years, Florida courts appeared to say that general liability insurance policies did not cover a subcontractor’s faulty work that damaged other parts of a general contractor’s work. That all changed with the Supreme Court of Florida’s decision in United States Fire Insurance Company v. J.S.U.B., Inc., in 2007. In J.S.U.B. the court found that present GL policies covered the faulty work of a subcontractor that damaged other parts of a general contractor’s work. The reasoning used by the J.S.U.B. court to reach that conclusion would seem to also apply to claims for property damage to a subcontractor’s work that resulted from the subcontractor’s faulty work. However, courts applying Florida law have not yet found this to be so, and in fact say just the opposite.

Read More »

Key Points