INGRAHAM V. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2006 RONALD H. INGRAHAM, ** Appellant, ** vs. ** TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, etc., et al., CASE NO. 3D03-1813 ** ** Appellees. LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 03-5050 ** Opinion filed March 8, 2006. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge. Ronald H. Ingraham, in proper person. Hicks appellees. & Kneale, Mark Hicks, and Dinah S. Stein, for Before GREEN, FLETCHER, and SHEPHERD, JJ. SHEPHERD, J. This case is before us on remand from the Florida Supreme Court. In Ingraham v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 875 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), this court per curiam affirmed the trial court s dismissal prejudice. of appellant s amended complaint with In our earlier decision, we relied upon Inservices, Inc. v. Aguilera, 837 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(Aguilera I), which has since been quashed by the supreme court. See Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2005)(Aguilera II). The Supreme Court therefore quashed remanded for reconsideration. 911 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2005). our prior decision and See Grace v. Royal Indem. Co., Appellant argues that Aguilera II affords him a cause of action against the Travelers Indemnity Company. We disagree and again affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff s complaint with prejudice. In 1998, compensation appellant, claim Ronald against his Ingraham, employer, filed Interval a workers Holdings, Inc., seeking compensation for vocal laryngitis that he alleges he contracted as a result of his job-related duty of responding to telephone workers inquiries compensation Indemnity Company. from Interval insurer at customers. the time Interval s was Travelers In 2002, Travelers settled the claim for a lump-sum payment of $5,000. In 2003, Ingraham sued Travelers. In his pro se amended complaint, Ingraham alleges that Travelers acted in bad faith toward him during the course of the claims process, and sought to plead causes of action against Travelers for waiver, estoppel, and meritless defense. 2 Accepting the allegations of Ingraham s amended complaint in a light most favorable to him, see Abrams v. Gen. Ins. Co., 460 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), Ingraham s bad faith cause of action is based upon allegations 626.9541(1)(i)3, Fla. that Stat. Travelers (1998) by violated furnishing section allegedly contradictory information in denial of claim forms furnished to him, ignoring evidence supporting his claim, and instructing Interval long after Ingraham s termination to run revised . . . job ads for the position held by him which [explicitly] sought applicants with the ability to handle a heavy call volume. Ingraham s waiver and estoppel claims are based, in substance, upon Travelers purported failure to respond or respond adequately to his claim; the meritless defense claim alleges that Travelers failed to raise a justiciable issue of either law or fact during the course of its resistance of Ingraham s claim prior to the settlement. Ingraham has made it clear in his filings below and here that leave to amend would not assist him further in stating a cause of action against Travelers. In Aguilera II, the Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed the long standing law of this state that the [state s] workers compensation legislation does immunize an insurance carrier for mere negligent conduct, simple bad faith and minor delays in payment . . . . added). Aguilera II, 905 So. 2d at 93 (emphasis However, the Court also concluded that if during the 3 course of the claims handling process where a workers compensation insurer commits an independent, intentional tort that is sufficiently separate, subsequent to and distinct from the original workplace injury, id. at 92, the immunity otherwise afforded to employer and insurer under the workers compensation statute s exclusivity provisions, ยงยง 440.10, 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2000) does not pertain. Thus, in Aguilera II, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a decision of this Court that ordered the trial court to dismiss Aguilera s complaint with prejudice, holding that the insurance adjuster s affirmative conduct inflicting damage on the claimant, including actually block[ing] receipt [Aguilera] by of the prescription hospital medication emergency prescribed physician to and unilaterally cancel[ling] medical testing prescribed by [the workers compensation carrier s] own physician, id. at 96, was sufficiently outrageous, separate, subsequent to and distinct from the original workplace injury to state a cause of action against Inservices, Inc. not approach Florida the Supreme The allegations made by Ingraham do exceptional Court, as circumstance illustrated by indicated the facts by the of its Aguilera decision, where a separate cause of action may lie. Affirmed. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.