Volume 28

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 234b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2803MCCOInsurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Appraisal — Motion to compel appraisal of windshield repair is granted — Prohibitive cost doctrine is not applicable in breach of contract claim

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 162a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2802HEAM

Insurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Appraisal — Prohibitive cost doctrine is not applicable to automobile insurance policy’s appraisal provision where breach of contract claim under insurance policy does not involve statutory right — Furthermore, plaintiff erred in comparing cost of appraisal to amount in controversy; correct analysis under prohibitive cost doctrine is to compare cost of appraisal to cost of litigation — Motions to enforce appraisal and to dismiss are granted

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 551a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806MAGA

Insurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Appraisal — Prohibitive cost doctrine — Repair shop is not entitled to evidentiary hearing on whether appraisal would be a prohibitive cost — Prohibitive cost doctrine is not applicable to contractual appraisal clauses concerning state court breach of contract issue — Demand for appraisal is granted, and case is dismissed for failure to fulfill appraisal condition precedent

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 535a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806MUSA

Insurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Appraisal — Prohibitive cost doctrine — Prohibitive cost doctrine is not applicable to appraisal provision where appraisal costs that were agreed to in policy and over which repair shop has significant control would not render shop unable to pursue claim — Clear and unambiguous appraisal clause that does not violate statutory law and is not contrary to public policy is enforceable

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 232b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2803ARZI

Insurance — Automobile — Windshield replacement — Appraisal — Unambiguous appraisal clause provides for easy, fair, efficient, and inexpensive means of determining reasonable cost of replacing windshield and does not violate statutory law or public policy — Motion to compel appraisal is granted — Insurer that promptly sent demand for appraisal after receipt of repair invoice did not waive its right to appraisal — Prohibitive cost doctrine is not applicable in breach of contract claim

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 407a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2805SPRI

Insurance — Automobile — Windshield replacement — Appraisal — Clear and unambiguous policy provision that provides simple and informal appraisal process for windshield replacement is enforceable against assignee of insured — There is no basis for claim that insurer waived right to appraisal where insurer invoked appraisal provision at start of litigation — Prohibitive cost doctrine is inapplicable to breach of contract action — Further, affidavits submitted by plaintiff are insufficient to satisfy burden to show that cost of appraisal is prohibitively expensive as compared to cost of litigation — If insurer’s appraiser is found to be partial, correct course of action is to appoint another appraiser, not to invalidate appraisal provision — No merit to argument that appraisal provision violates right of access to courts where agreement to appraisal provision relinquished that right — Where plaintiff failed to satisfy condition precedent of appraisal, dismissal is required

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 541a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806DR

Insurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Motion to dismiss or stay case and compel appraisal is denied — Allegations in amended complaint contain all necessary elements to support causes of action asserted

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 528a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806WATSInsurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Motion to compel appraisal granted

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 161a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2802JEAN

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Application — Misrepresentations — Where insurer breached PIP policy and violated PIP statute by failing to pay or deny claim within 30 days of its initiation and did not invoke additional time period for investigation of claim, insurer’s rescission of policy for alleged misrepresentation in application was improper

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 157a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2802GREE

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Application — Misrepresentations — Where PIP insurer breached policy by failing to timely pay or deny claim and waited 85 days after learning of alleged material misrepresentation to invoke rescission right, insurer’s overt acts of continuing to send out letters pursuant to PIP statute after learning of rescission right waived that right