724 (Fla.1994), disapproved on other grounds, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So.2d 55, 62 (Fla.1995); Imhof v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 643 So.2d 617 (Fla.1994), receded from on other grounds, Laforet, 658 So.2d at 63. Without a final resolution of the actual amount of coverage, the Golmons have not yet established a basis for a bad faith suit. The Golmons have brought a breach of contract case to determine coverage simultaneously with their bad faith claims. Unlike in the Blanchard line of cases, the extent of coverage is the very issue yet to be determined in the breach of contract count now pending below. The partial payment of the policy limits does not settle this question under these circumstances. See GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 927 So.2d 122 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). The force of the Mierzwa opinion is limited
holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach holding that insureds breach of contract suit against insurer raised a coverage issue which was not settled by insurers payment of only part of what insured was claiming in breach of contract action recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action