FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Friday, April 25, 2025
CAPTION: EASTLAWN PROPERTIES, LLC V. STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
APPEAL NO.: C-240277
TRIAL NO.: A-2300885
KEY WORDS: INSURANCE — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — LIMITATIONS PERIOD — CONTRACTS — WAIVER— BAD FAITH — BREACH OF CONTRACT — PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL — NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION — FRAUD — MOTION TO DISMISS — EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
SUMMARY: Where insured’s claim for breach of contract was barred by the two-year suit-limitation period in the insurance policy, and where insurer did not waive the limitation provision, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to insurer on the claim.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to insurer on insured’s claim for bad faith in the handling and processing of insured’s claim under the policy where the record contained genuine issues of material fact as to whether there was a reasonable justification for the insurer’s repeated failure to respond to the insured, its delay in issuing payment, and its request for additional documentation regarding code upgrades to the insured property.
The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to insurer on insured’s claim that insurer had breached the contract it had with insured’s restoration company where the record established that no contract was formed between insurer and the restoration company.
Where insurer never promised to pay insured’s restoration company a specific amount for supplemental repairs, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to insurer on the claim for promissory estoppel.
The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to insurer on claims for negligent misrepresentation and fraud where insurer did not provide false and misleading information or omit any material facts that insured relied on and that resulted in injury or pecuniary loss to insured.
Because the doctrines of waiver and estoppel are not available to extend the terms of an insurance policy, the trial court did not err in dismissing insured’s claim for estoppel/waiver of the insurance policy’s code upgrade coverage limitation.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. DONOVAN
APPEAL NO.: C-240437
TRIAL NO.: B-2303394
KEY WORDS: SELF-DEFENSE – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
SUMMARY: The trial court’s finding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence because defendant did not have a bona fide belief of imminent death or great bodily harm and he chose to reengage with the victim, creating the situation that led to the affray.
The trial court did not improperly consider evidence that defendant was safe within his home before he chose to reengage with the victim, as it demonstrated who was at fault in creating the situation.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and BOCK, J., CONCUR.