Volume 26

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 428a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2605TOSCInsurance — Automobile — Windshield replacement or repair — Appraisal — Enforcement of appraisal clause for windshield damage claims violates statutory scheme prohibiting any deductible or any other out-of-pocket expense from being required from an insured in connection with windshield repairs — Issue raises question of policy interpretation and falls within the authority of court to decide

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 436b

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 421aOnline Reference: FLWSUPP 2605GOLDInsurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Appraisal — Declaratory action alleging that insurer improperly reduced charges for windshield repair is dismissed without prejudice pending completion of appraisal — Compelling appraisal is appropriate where valid written agreement for appraisal is contained in policy, dispute as to amount of loss is appropriate for appraisal, and insurer did not waive right to appraisal — Argument that appraisal provision is void under prohibitive cost doctrine cannot be considered where plaintiff has not made showing that cost of appraisal would be prohibitively expensive — No merit to arguments that appraisal is premature because dispute is not about amount of loss but about policy’s limits of liability provision and that requiring plaintiff to pay cost of appraisal would result in de facto deductible in violation of section 627.7288

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 436b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2605PEREInsurance — Automobile — Windshield replacement or repair — Appraisal

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 977b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2612LANDInsurance — Property — Appraisal — Insurer’s motion to stay and compel appraisal is granted — No merit to argument that appraisal provision of policy does not apply to assignee of insured — Nothing in policy prevents insurer from demanding appraisal for work that has already been performed and invoiced

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 759b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2609CALIInsurance — Personal injury protection — Application — Misrepresentations — Resident of household — Where insured failed to disclose licensed son living with her on application for PIP policy, and insurer would not have issued policy or would have issued policy at higher premium due to increased risk if it had known that son was living with insured, policy was void ab initio

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 320a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2604MCKIInsurance — Application — Material misrepresentation — Insured entitled to summary judgment on issue of material misrepresentation where opposing affidavit on which insurer relied as evidence that premium rate would have changed if insured’s co-resident grandmother had been listed on application is inadmissible hearsay and not based on personal knowledge of affiant

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 405b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2605LESCInsurance — Personal injury protection — Rescission — Material misrepresentations — Where insured misrepresented garaged location of insured vehicle on application, and premium would have been more than double if insured had given his correct address, insurer was entitled to rescind PIP policy and deny coverage

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 618a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2608MORAInsurance — Misrepresentation — Genuine issues of fact exist regarding misrepresentation where neither party had full recall of the questions asked by insurance agent and accuracy of answers given by insured during insurance application meeting

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 703a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2609VEGAInsurance — Appraisal — Appeals — Jurisdiction — Non-final order compelling appraisal is not appealable or reviewable by certiorari

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 133c

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2602MORRInsurance — Affirmative defenses — Amendment — Motion to amend answer and affirmative defenses to include statute of limitations defense is granted where amendment is potentially dispositive of entire case, provider would not be unfairly surprised or prejudiced by amendment to raise defense it was aware of when it filed complaint, and insurer’s loss of ability to pursue claim is not due to bad faith conduct on part of insurer