Volume 4

Case Search

CRUZ E. GUILCAPI, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 788b

Insurance — Automobile — Physical damage — Assistance and cooperation — Where policy did not specifically list the giving of a statement as a condition precedent to filing a lawsuit or give notice to insured that he must deliver a statement prior to legal action, insured at no time prior to filing the suit refused to submit a written or sworn statement, and insured waited on two occasions for insurer’s representative to call him for the requested statement, insured did comply with the cooperation requested in the investigation of his claim — By its own conduct, insurer waived right to assert breach of cooperation clause as defense to coverage

Read More »

PEDRO CASTRO, Appellant, v. FORTUNE INSURANCE CO., Appellee.

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 438c

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Trial court erred in finding that insured had validly assigned rights under policy to medical providers where plain language of policy prohibited assignment without written consent of insurer, and record revealed that insurer had not given written consent

Read More »

SHERYL ROSS, Plaintiff, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 165a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Motion to dismiss insured’s breach of contract claim against insurer on ground that dispute should be resolved through binding arbitration is denied — Statute providing for arbitration of disputes between insurer and any person providing medical services or supplies does not apply to dispute between insured and insurer — Insurer failed to prove existence of any assignment of PIP benefits from insured to health care providers — Motion to dismiss claim for declaratory relief on issue of whether policy provides PIP coverage for chiropractic treatment is denied

Read More »

TIMOTHY L. BATES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County.

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 632a

Criminal law — Driving under influence — Argument — Prosecutor’s remark to jury asking “How can you even equate the honesty of law enforcement officers to that of the defendant,” patently improper — Prosecutor may never attempt to sway jury to believe the testimony of police officers merely because they are police officers — Reversal not required where error not preserved for appeal by objection and argument not so egregious as to constitute fundamental error

Read More »

PINNACLE MEDICAL, INC. d/b/a ISO Data Diagnostics, Plaintiff, v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 571a

Arbitration — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Statute requiring insurers to include within each PIP policy a provision offering arbitration as an option for dispute resolution does not require mandatory binding arbitration of all disputes between medical providers and insurers — Binding arbitration not required absent an agreement between medical provider and insurer in which they specifically contract for arbitration of dispute or an assignment in which medical provider has made specific reference to statute and its arbitration option, thus evidencing an intent to arbitrate

Read More »

O.G.D. DIAGNOSTIC AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Plaintiff, v. FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 567a

Arbitration — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Statute requiring insurers to include within each PIP policy a provision offering arbitration as an option for dispute resolution does not require mandatory binding arbitration of all disputes between medical provider assignees and insurers — Assignee of PIP benefits may not be compelled to arbitrate dispute with insurer where assignee is neither party to insurance contract nor an intended third party beneficiary, unless insured has agreed to binding arbitration as condition to recovery — Motion to dismiss assignee’s suit and to compel arbitration is denied

Read More »

PHYSICIANS DIAGNOSTIC AND REHAB, INC., Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 509c

Arbitration — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Statute requiring insurers to include within each PIP policy a provision offering arbitration as an option to dispute resolution does not provide for mandatory arbitration — Assignee of policy which did not contain a provision requiring arbitration of claims between insurer and insured was not required to submit to binding arbitration

Read More »

ANTONIO COSTA, Appellant, vs. FIDELITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Appellate Division.

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 130a

Arbitration — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Dispute between insurer and medical services provider who has accepted assignment of benefits was required to be resolved by arbitration under terms of policy — Although no written assignment of benefits had been made, trial court could infer the existence of valid assignment from fact that medical services provider presented its bill to insurer and requested that payment be made directly to provider rather than insured — Order granting motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration is affirmed

Read More »

SUSAN JOYCE and KEVIN SKOLNICK, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Defendant/Appellee.

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 377a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Applicant for insurance was required to disclose name of fiancee who was living with him at time of application and who was not registered owner of a vehicle — Insurer was justified in denying coverage for injuries sustained by fiancee in accident that occurred while she was operating vehicle where omission of fiancee’s name from application prevented insurer from investigating fiancee’s driving record, and insurer would not have issued policy had it discovered fiancee’s poor driving record — Questions on application were not ambiguous with respect to requirement that applicant disclose names of anyone living in household who was not registered owner of a vehicle — Applicant not required to disclose fiancee’s name in response to request for “Names of All Licensed Drivers and/or Drivers of Vehicle” where fiancee’s license was suspended at time of application and she did not at that time drive the insured vehicle — Insurer not required to rescind policy in order to deny coverage for fiancee’s injuries

Read More »
Skip to content