Ellison v. Willoughby
After a $4 million settlement of the plaintiff's first-party bad faith and UM claims against his own insurer, a jury awarded $30 million against a vicariously liable defendant, who sought a setoff. The Florida Supreme Court held that a settlement payment made by a UM insurer to resolve a first-party statutory bad faith claim is not a 'collateral source' under section 768.76(2)(a)2., because statutory bad faith damages are an extracontractual penalty and not insurance 'benefits.' The Court also held the defendant failed to preserve any setoff argument under section 768.041(2) because she relied solely on section 768.76 in the trial court, and it quashed the Second District's ruling on that statute.
Key facts
- Plaintiff settled first-party bad faith and uninsured motorist claims against his own insurance company for $4 million, then obtained a $30 million jury verdict against a vicariously liable defendant.
- The vicariously liable defendant sought to set off the $4 million settlement as a collateral source under Florida Statutes section 768.76(2)(a)2.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a significant win for plaintiffs' counsel: bad faith settlement proceeds from a UM carrier cannot be set off as collateral sources against a tort judgment, preserving the full verdict against the tortfeasor… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.