24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 156a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2402MOSTInsurance — Breach of contract claim filed against insurer after insurer paid claim submitted by insured in 2009 — Insurer’s motion for summary judgment based on prior payment is denied where genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether insurer’s conduct in response to claim constituted performance of its obligation under policy
MOHAMMED MOSTAFA, Plaintiff, vs. TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 10th Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County. Case No. 2014CC-002674. September 1, 2015. Gerald P. Hill, II, Judge. Counsel: Laura Guzman, Trujillo Vargas Ortiz Gonzalez Attorneys at Law, Orlando, for Plaintiff. Judd Goodall, Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S SECONDMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on August 31, 2015, for hearing on Defendant’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment. Present were Laura Guzman, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff; and Judd Goodall, Esq., attorney for Defendant. Having reviewed the Motion, considered the arguments of counsel, reviewed the applicable case law, and otherwise being fully advised on the premises, the Court finds as follows:
1. Defendant’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment is based on Defendant’s claim that its payment of a claim submitted by Plaintiff in 2009 constitutes performance of Defendant’s obligations under the subject insurance policy.
2. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s payment was not sufficient to cover the loss sustained by Plaintiff.
3. Although Defendant relies on Slayton v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D2748a] to support its argument that summary judgment is appropriate in light of Defendant’s payment, Slayton is distinguishable from this case. The letter provided to Plaintiff from Defendant in this case contained language different from the letter provided to the insured in Slayton. Further, Slayton was an appeal from a directed verdict, rather than from a summary judgment. As such, Slayton does not establish that summary judgment is appropriate.
4. Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Defendant’s conduct in response to Plaintiff’s claim constituted performance of Defendant’s obligations under the subject policy.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendant’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
