Volume 14

Case Search

BRUCE M. GELCH, D.C., P.A., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a MODERN CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, also d/b/a MODERN THERAPEUTICS, a/a/o Mauricio Olmos, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Defendant.

14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1067a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorneys — Disqualification — Prior employment — Motion to disqualify counsel for medical providers is granted where, in prior employment by insurer, providers’ attorney co-supervised attorney who represented insurer in another case that involved the same automobile accident, insured and medical providers as instant case

Read More »

TAMPA TRAUMA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant.

14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 389a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Costs — Guidelines — Where amended Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Cases were not in effect when suit was filed but were in effect when insurer’s right to tax costs was triggered by voluntary dismissal of case, amended guidelines apply to determination of which costs are taxable — Deposition charges are taxable where costs were reasonably necessary for insurer to defend case

Read More »

CECILIA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Defendant.

14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1142a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Insured who submitted affidavits and exhibits that demonstrated she was entitled to coverage as matter of law for an accident that occurred after binder had been issued by broker for her new vehicle, which was added to existing policy, is entitled to summary judgment — Affidavit submitted by insurer’s underwriter indicating that insured did not have coverage at time of accident because insurer did not issue policy on vehicle until after accident did not create genuine issue of fact, because it did not address temporary binding effected by insurer — Insurer bound insured’s policy in compliance with governing statute, record supports contention that broker was actual agent of insurer, and even if record did not establish actual agency, apparent agency was established

Read More »

KATHLEEN PRESSMAN, Appellant, v. AUTOMOBILE PROTECTION CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, d/b/a EasyCare GAP Protection, Appellee.

14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 129a

Insurance — Automobile — Gap policy — Jurisdiction — County court — Appeal of county court’s dismissal of action brought by owner of vehicle totaled in accident against defendant that did not indemnify owner pursuant to gap policy in which defendant agreed to pay owner difference between outstanding balance of car loan and vehicle’s actual cash value in event of total loss, upon finding that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address sole remaining issue of attorney’s fees and costs following entry of default and defendant’s payment of damages because defendant is not insurer, but motor vehicle service agreement company — Chapter 634, which governs motor vehicle service agreements and grants jurisdiction to circuit court for violation of statute, is not applicable because gap policy sold by defendant did not indemnify against loss caused by failure of mechanical or other component part of vehicle and, therefore, was not motor vehicle service agreement — Rather, where gap policy indemnified owner against loss greater than value of totaled vehicle, but less than outstanding loan amount, defendant was operating as insurer outside of its authority under chapter 634 — No merit to defendant’s argument that it cannot be insurer because license as motor vehicle service agreement company prevents it from simultaneously being insurer where defendant’s answer to complaint refers to “gap insurance contract” and policy refers to “gap protection” and “gap addendum” throughout — Because defendant was acting as insurer pursuant to Insurance Code, county court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction

Read More »

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. HYMA MEDICAL CENTER/ Fidel Hernandez Sanchez, Appellee.

14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 745a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Settlement — Error to find there was no enforceable settlement agreement between medical provider and insurer for payment of attorney’s fees to provider’s current and former counsel where there was agreement regarding amount of fees and all that remained to be performed was mere formality of executing releases by both law firms

Read More »
Skip to content