1. Equitable estoppel requires a misrepresentation of a material fact that is relied upon by the party asserting estoppel.
2. The party claiming estoppel must show a detrimental change in position as a result of the reliance on the misrepresentation.
3. Equitable estoppel precludes a party from maintaining inconsistent positions to the detriment of another.
4. Equitable estoppel arises when one party lures another party into a disadvantageous legal position.
5. Equitable estoppel is the result of voluntary conduct that precludes a party from asserting rights against another who has relied in good faith and has been led to change their position for the worse.
6. Equitable estoppel occurs when words or conduct cause someone to believe a certain state of things exists and consequently change their position in an adverse way. – Equitable estoppel operates as a shield, not a sword, and is designed to prevent a loss rather than aid a litigant in gaining something.
– The doctrine of equitable estoppel is meant to prevent a party from profiting from their wrongdoing and operates against the wrongdoer, not the victim.
– In order to assert a defense of estoppel, it is necessary that the representations, whether consisting of words, acts, omissions, or conduct of the party against whom the estoppel is being asserted, were believed by the party claiming the estoppel, and that the party asserting equitable estoppel must prove that he or she reasonably relied on the conduct of the other party.
– Equitable estoppel rests largely upon injury or prejudice to the rights of him or her who asserts it, and there can be no estoppel where there is no loss, injury, prejudice, or detriment to the party claiming it. – Most courts adhere to the majority position that estoppel cannot be used to expand coverage not provided in an insurance contract.
– Florida has joined the minority position, allowing coverage for an insured based on estoppel in the case of Crown Life Ins. Co. v. McBride.
– The case of Crown Life involved the insured being led to believe that coverage existed through discussions with the insurer and insurance broker, and the jury verdict and final judgment in favor of the insured were affirmed on the basis of the general rule in applying equitable estoppel to insurance contracts. 1. The Florida Supreme Court established that promissory estoppel can be used to create insurance coverage in cases where not doing so would result in fraud or injustice.
2. The court ruled that a promisor (insurer) can be held responsible for inducing the promisee (insured) into action or forbearance, if such reliance was detrimental to the promisee.
3. However, the court also held that the promisee must provide clear and satisfactory evidence of their detrimental reliance, instead of relying on argument or inference. 1. The insurer or its agent must have made a representation to the insured after the issuance of the policy and before the incident giving rise to a claim under the policy.
2. This representation must have led the insured to believe that coverage existed.
3. The insured must have relied upon the representation to his or her detriment.
4. This reliance must have been reasonable and foreseeable to the insurer.
https://www.jimersonfirm.com/blog/2010/10/understanding-the-basics-of-equitable-estoppel-and-using-equitable-estoppel-principles-to-create-insurance-coverage-in-florida/
Leave a Reply