Evanston Insurance Co. Faces $5M Settlement Obligation in Tragic Bike Accident
In a courtroom drama unfolding in the Southern District of Florida, Evanston Insurance Co. is under intense scrutiny as it battles a $5 million settlement demand related to a fatal bike accident. The estate of Lisa Enfield, tragically struck in a motor vehicle collision, asserts that Evanston’s policyholder, Eitel Enterprises Inc., must bear the financial responsibility.
The Disputed Exclusion: Unveiling Evanston’s Defense
Steven Enfield, the grieving husband of Lisa, initiated legal action against Evanston Insurance Co. on Friday. Enfield argues that Evanston wrongly disclaimed coverage by invoking the “aircraft, auto, or watercraft” exclusion in Eitel Enterprises’ policy. According to the complaint, this exclusion denies coverage for bodily injury arising from the ownership, use, or entrustment of any auto owned or operated by an insured.
The Tragic Incident and Vicarious Liability
On February 11, 2022, Christopher Eitel, an employee of Eitel Enterprises, negligently collided with Lisa Enfield while operating his car. Enfield contends that Eitel, acting within the scope of his employment, is entirely at fault, making Eitel Enterprises vicariously liable for the accident.
Denied Coverage and Settlement Offers
Despite Eitel Enterprises promptly notifying Evanston of the incident, the insurer denied coverage in March 2022. Undeterred, Enfield extended a settlement offer within policy limits in April 2022. Evanston acknowledged that the vehicle belonged to Eitel but persisted in disclaiming coverage, leading Enfield to pursue legal action in September 2022.
$5M Fatal Bike Accident: Legal Maneuvers and Subrogation
Enfield filed a lawsuit against Eitel and Eitel Enterprises in state court. Eitel Enterprises defended itself, and USAA/Garrison defended Eitel under his personal automobile policy. In August 2023, an agreement was reached, and Enfield, Eitel, and Eitel Enterprises entered into a settlement, with the company subrogating its rights against Evanston to Enfield.
Separation of Insureds Provision: Enfield’s Defense
Enfield contends that the policy includes a separation of insureds provision, treating each named insured as if they were the sole named insured. This provision, Enfield argues, prevents Evanston from invoking the auto exclusion since the vehicle was not owned or operated by Eitel Enterprises at the time of the accident.
$5M Fatal Bike Accident: Echoes of Silence: No Comments from Stakeholders
As the legal battle intensifies, representatives of Enfield and Evanston remain tight-lipped, declining to comment on the ongoing proceedings.
Legal Landscape
Enfield is represented by Stephen A. Marino Jr., Michal Meiler, and Lindsay R. Abbondandolo of Ver Ploeg & Marino PA. Counsel information for Evanston is currently unavailable.
$5M Fatal Bike Accident: Courtroom Drama Unfolds
The case, titled Enfield et al. v. Evanston Insurance Co., is set to unfold in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case Number 9:24-cv-80008.
