Volume 27

27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1003a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2712DELAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Motorized scooter — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insured who was injured while driving motorized scooter — There was genuine issue of material fact as to whether scooter was “self-propelled vehicle” such that insured was barred from recovering under terms of PIP statute and policy that provide coverage only when insured is occupant of motor vehicle or not occupant of self-propelled vehicle at time of accident — Although “self-propelled vehicle” is not defined in policy or statute, features of scooter suggest that it is self-propelled vehicle within ordinary meaning of that term where scooter has two wheels and 49cc motor, is used for transporting persons on roads, and lacks pedals permitting human propulsion

27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 303a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2703LRODInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Summary judgment — Motion for summary judgment, requesting determination that nonresident insured with New Hampshire policy is not entitled to additional Florida PIP benefits for accident that occurred in Florida because he had not been in state for 90 days within 365 days prior to accident so as to be required to maintain PIP insurance under section 627.733, is denied — Evidence — Hearsay — Because PIP policy is non-hearsay, unauthenticated copy of policy is admissible in support of motion for summary judgment without the necessity to lay a foundation for its admission as a business record — Affidavit of claims specialist is admissible in support of motion for summary judgment, but portion of affidavit regarding claims note that relates conversation in which insured told another agent that he had only been in Florida for 3 weeks at time of accident is inadmissible double hearsay — Business records exception is not applicable to claims note where affiant had no personal knowledge of conversation — Admissions exception is not applicable to claims note where statements were made by nonparty insured and were not adopted by medical provider or injured claimant

27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1051a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2712EMILInsurance — Evidence — Motion in limine — Mere mention of claim handling process at trial would not be prejudicial or, if so, would not be so prejudicial that it could not be cured — Motion in limine seeking to preclude any reference to insurer’s claim handling procedures is denied without prejudice to making appropriate objection at trial — Discussion of motions in limine

27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 122a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 27021010Insurance — Personal injury protection — Evidence — Deposition of expert witness — Trial court abused its discretion in allowing insurer to admit deposition of physician as expert witness under rule 1.330 where physician’s testimony did not include expert opinion but, rather, disputed factual issue regarding whether billed services were actually rendered, and insurer did not demonstrate that it exercised reasonable due diligence to procure physician’s attendance at trial — Fact that medical provider previously listed physician as expert witness for purpose of having expert witness fee paid for deposition did not invite error — New trial required where erroneously admitted deposition was only evidence to support jury’s finding that there were billed services that were not rendered

27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 293a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2703BUSAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Documents — Motion to compel production of signed PIP deductible election form is denied where insurer states that it has no such form in its possession and Florida law does not require insurer to obtain such form

27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 861a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2710TORRInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Insurer was denied due process at hearing on motion to strike pleadings for failure to comply with discovery orders where insurer had only four days to prepare for hearing and could not obtain testimony of attorney responsible for discovery at time of alleged malfeasance four years earlier — Kozel factor of whether attorney has previously been sanctioned was not met where attorneys representing insurer have been sanctioned in other cases but attorneys in case at bar have never been sanctioned — Further, trial court erred in striking pleadings where medical provider’s failure to prosecute was major cause for delay in case, not insurer’s noncompliance with discovery orders, and less severe sanctions would have cured harm resulting from noncompliance

27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 857a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2710UNITInsurance — Discovery — Expert witnesses — Order requiring insurer’s expert witness to produce proof of current employment referenced in his expert witness affidavit is quashed — Disclosure of non-party’s personal employment contracts cannot be remedied on appeal and exceeds scope of discovery permitted under rule 1.280

27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 648a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2707TRUJInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Failure to comply — Sanctions

27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 907a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2710TRUJInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Failure to appear — Sanctions — Where insurer failed to appear for three depositions and did not file or schedule motion for protective order prior to first two depositions, motion for sanctions is granted — Motion for protective order is denied

27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 407a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2704JETIInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Failure to provide deposition dates and failure to appear for noticed deposition — Sanctions