Volume 22

Case Search

TYLER AVERDICK and TERRY AVERDICK, individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Defendant.

22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1020a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2209AVERInsurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Wood rot damage — Summary judgment — Affidavit filed by homeowners in opposition to summary judgment is stricken as untimely where affidavit was filed after 5 pm on Friday before Monday hearing — Outline of coverage listing alternative available coverage that would increase $10,000 coverage limit for wood rot damage to $50,000 does not create ambiguity regarding coverage limit where outline is not part of policy and section 627.4143 provides that outline is not admissible in civil actions — Even if court were to consider outline as part of policy, there is no ambiguity as to whether additional wood rot coverage existed — Summary judgment is entered in favor of insurer

Read More »

RONALD JUVONEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1155a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2210JUVOInsurance — Homeowners — Class action lawsuit alleging insurer breached homeowners’ policies by withholding payment of general contractor’s overhead and profit when paying claims for damaged homes — Motion for class certification is denied — Putative class of insureds who were reasonably likely to incur GCOP as part of their damages and who have not received GCOP payment or released insurer from any claims fails to satisfy numerosity requirement where there is insufficient evidence before trial court to establish number of members of putative class, class members are not identifiable from insurer’s data, and plaintiffs’ class definition would result in class that contains wholly indeterminate number of uninjured class members — Requirements of commonality and adequacy are satisfied — Typicality requirement is not met where plaintiffs presented evidence regarding only two class members’ claims, and those claims are factually distinct from each other — Predominance and superiority requirements are not met where determination of whether it is reasonably likely general contractor would be needed for repairs would require individual examination of each plaintiff’s situation — Plaintiffs’ proposal to employ standard that use of general contractor is per se reasonably likely when repairs require more than one trade is rejected

Read More »

RESTORATION 1 OF THE TREASURE COAST a/a/o JAY DAWLEY, Appellant, v. FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a FRONTLINE HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE, Appellee.

22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 81b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2201DAWLInsurance — Homeowners — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint brought against insurer by company that repaired water damage to insured’s home on grounds that assignment was made without insurer’s consent and that repair company failed to join insured as indispensable party where resolution of those issues required consideration of insurance policy not attached to complaint and were, thus, beyond four corners of complaint — Trial court’s dismissal of complaint is affirmed under “tipsy coachman doctrine” where trial court should have dismissed complaint with leave to amend due to failure to attach policy, but repair company invited error by repeatedly declining offer to amend and insisting on final order granting motion to dismiss

Read More »

SILVERLAND MEDICAL CENTER, a/a/o ELADIO MARTINEZ, a/a/o JULIO MARTINEZ, a/a/o MARIELA DIAZ, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Defendant.

22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 376a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2203SILVInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Where husband and wife claimants purchased vehicle intended for their sole use and possession and paid for insurance on vehicle, and named insured on vehicle policy had no involvement with vehicle other than co-signing for purchase, claimants could be entitled to statutory coverage under policy as beneficial owners of vehicle even though they were not named insureds on policy — Statutory coverage may extend to son as resident relative of beneficial owners — Where policy exclusion improperly limits coverage to named insured, court is obligated to construe policy as if it fully complies with statutory coverage requirements — Insurer is not entitled to summary judgment on coverage issue

Read More »
Skip to content