Volume 25

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 922a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2510FERNInsurance — Automobile — Windshield replacement or repair — Prevailing competitive price — Discovery — Depositions — Insurer’s corporate representative — Scope of inquiry and documents required to be produced at deposition — Plaintiff made sufficient showing that, in context of what prices are “prevailing” and “competitive,” information regarding relationship between insurer and certain business entities was likely to lead to admissible evidence — Discussion of relevance-based and privilege-based objections, including insurer’s claim of trade secret protection

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 920a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2510BLUEInsurance — Automobile — Windshield replacement or repair — Prevailing competitive price — Discovery — Depositions — Insurer’s corporate representative — Scope of inquiry and documents required to be produced at deposition — Plaintiff made sufficient showing that, in context of what prices are “prevailing” and “competitive,” information regarding relationship between insurer and certain business entities was likely to lead to admissible evidence — Discussion of relevance-based and privilege-based objections, including insurer’s claim of trade secret protection

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 833a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2509JJOHInsurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Declaratory judgments — Plaintiff has stated cause of action for declaratory relief in complaint seeking interpretation of term “cost to repair or replace” in policy and declarations that appraisal provision in policy is not applicable to claim for windshield repair, that appraisal in context of claim violates prohibitive cost doctrine, and that insurer failed to select disinterested appraiser — Motion to dismiss and compel appraisal denied, as case presents issues of contract interpretation, coverage, and standing that are beyond determination of damages — Windshield replacement and repair is not contemplated by appraisal provision of policy requiring appraiser to determine actual cash value and amount of loss, which are not relevant to cost to repair windshield

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 789a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2509JWILInsurance — Automobile — Windshield replacement or repair — Coverage — Plain language of policy, construed strictly against insurer and giving every provision its full meaning and operative effect, dictates that whether insurer elects to pay directly for loss or repair or replace damaged parts under loss settlement provision of policy, the limit of coverage is actual cash value of the damaged parts as determined by considering, among other things, fair market value — Because there was genuine issue of material fact regarding actual cash value of windshield replacements in the locality at issue, trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 306b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2504LYONInsurance — Automobile — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer in action by auto repair shop for additional repairs to insured’s vehicle that were performed pursuant to shop’s supplemental estimate after insurer paid benefits pursuant to its own estimate where repair shop was not bound by provision requiring pre-approval of all estimates, which was included in insurer’s estimate but was not included in policy — Further, summary judgment was precluded by outstanding issues of material fact with respect to whether insurer’s estimate would fully pay for loss

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 983a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2511JREYInsurance — Automobile — Jurisdiction — County court — No merit to argument that county court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claim for property damage benefits because combination of all coverages available under policy, including PIP benefits not at issue, exceeds jurisdictional limits of county court — Motion to dismiss is denied

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 402c

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2505DOUGInsurance — Automobile — Property damage — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer in action alleging insurer breached contract by denying coverage for damages sustained when “simulated convertible roof top” blew off vehicle based on policy’s “normal wear and tear” exclusion where genuine issues of material fact existed as to cause of the loss

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 368a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2504KUROInsurance — Automobile — Declaratory action — Coverage — Diminished value of repaired vehicle — Insurer’s contention that policy does not cover diminished value claim violates Florida Financial Responsibility Law, and any policy provisions that support that contention would be rendered invalid — Where policy provides coverage for “all damages” to property and does not define damages or include specific exclusion for diminished value claims, insurer must provide coverage for diminished value claim

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 382b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2504NODAInsurance — Automobile — Summary judgment in favor of insurer is precluded by factual questions as to whether rental car expenses arose as consequence of insurer’s denial of coverage based on material misrepresentation and whether those damages should be covered under rental reimbursement provision of policy or as consequential damages under property damage provision of policy

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 388a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2504FOUNInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Where insurer paid overdue claim within 30 days of receipt of demand letter but made check payable to medical provider rather than payee specified in demand letter, insurer is immune from suit pursuant to section 627.736(10)(d) — Attorney’s fees — Confession of judgment — Even if court did not find that insurer was immune from suit based on initial payment, re-issuance of payment to specified payee after 30-day grace period and on same day suit was filed would not be considered confession of judgment where insurer had already demonstrated intent to comply with policy obligations by issuance of original check, and provider was not forced to sue to receive benefits