Volume 11

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1114a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Exhaustion of benefits — Where there are competing claims for PIP benefits, insurer should pay benefits and apply deductible based upon order in which bills were received — Error to apply medical bill to deductible, rather than previously received claim for lost wages

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 959a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Failure to pay or reject claim within 30 days — Error to order that insurer could not apply deductible to award of PIP benefits because insurer failed to pay benefits or reject claim within thirty days of receipt of notice of loss — Statutory penalties for payment of overdue claim are limited to interest and attorney’s fees — Deductibles — No merit to argument that plaintiff who seeks PIP benefits under policy issued to wife, named insured, is non-dependent spouse whom wife could not bind to deductible — Plaintiff was “named insured” under policy, which included in that definition “the spouse if a resident of the same household”

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1004a

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 988b

Declaratory judgments — Insurance — Wrongful death — Insurer seeking determination of its rights, obligations, and liabilities under commercial general liability policy and commercial umbrella liability policy in connection with wrongful death claims arising out of incident in which decedent, while working in scope of employment with defendant, was shot — Civil procedure — Petitioner’s motion for leave to file third amended petition is denied — Proposed amendment changes previous issues in contention, and petitioner would need to supply court with new evidence to support these contentions — Need to provide new evidence transforms third amended petition into new or different cause of action — Information underlying reasons for seeking amendment is not such that these reasons were not discoverable prior to filing of initial complaint — Raising of new or different issue would cause severe prejudice to certain defendants

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 109a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Action for declaratory relief brought by passenger injured when uninsured motorist collided with rental car in which passenger rode to determine whether carrier of passenger’s automobile policy or carrier of supplemental liability insurance and UM coverage purchased under rental agreement, or both pro rata, had primary UM coverage on passenger’s claim — Issue of primary coverage is not premature despite fact that passenger has not been awarded UM benefits where both insurers have denied coverage, thereby preventing passenger from proceeding with claim and leaving passenger no alternative but to bring declaratory judgment action — UM coverage of passenger’s automobile insurance policy is primary where passenger has right to expect insurer to respond with primary coverage of any UM claims in return for payment of premiums for coverage — Moreover, where passenger’s insurance policy agrees to pay any UM loss sustained which is not covered by other UM coverage, and supplemental liability insurance policy is excess policy which looks first to underlying insurance and other collectible insurance available before its coverage is activated, passenger’s loss is not covered by supplemental policy until passenger’s own policy has been exhausted

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 929a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Counsel — Motion to withdraw as medical provider’s counsel and provider’s motion for protective order are granted

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 475b

Insurance — Attorneys — Disqualification — Failure to appear at hearing — Sanctions — Monetary sanction imposed for failure of medical provider’s counsel to appear at hearing on insurer’s motion for his disqualification

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1009b

Insurance — Counsel — Disqualification — Conflict of interest — Representation of both assignor and assignee

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 606a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Counsel — Disqualification — Conflict of interest — Prior representation of insurer — Certiorari challenge to order disqualifying attorney who was previously employed as in-house and outside counsel to insurer from representation of medical provider in PIP suit challenging insurer’s use of computer program to reduce medical bills — Waiver — Trial court’s finding that there was no waiver of right to disqualify counsel is supported by record where subpoena that provider relies on as proof that insurer knew of attorney’s affiliation with law firm representing provider fifteen months before insurer moved for disqualification was issued in another case in another county and cannot be used to prove insurer’s knowledge of attorney’s involvement in instant case — Trial court’s finding that present case is substantially related to matters in which attorney participated during his employment by insurer is properly supported by record where attorney was instrumental in implementing and developing defense strategies as to same computer program provider seeks to attack, complaint alleges that medical bills were reduced on basis of program alone, and insurer only seeks to disqualify attorney from those cases in which computer program is challenged — No error in denial of motion for relief from disqualification order on ground that new evidence established that insurer committed fraud on court in testimony regarding when it first learned that attorney was former in-house counsel where alleged new evidence was unsworn comments made in deposition filed in a different case in another county, and comments do not contradict testimony as to when insurer first learned of attorney’s involvement with computer program as in-house counsel — Petition for writ of certiorari denied

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 615a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Counsel — Disqualification — Conflict of interest — Prior representation of insurer — Substantially related matters — Where cases in which attorney represented insurer were based on different factual circumstances from present case, and insurer failed to demonstrate that information to which attorney had access when employed by insurer gave him unfair advantage in any cases attorney contemplated filing against insurer, insurer failed to prove that matters embraced in pending PIP suit are same or substantially related to matters in which attorney previously represented insurer — Denial of motions to disqualify counsel did not constitute departure from essential requirements of law — Petition for writ of certiorari denied