fbpx

2000

Case Search

JANA P. VEST, Petitioner, vs. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC 93355. March 2, 2000. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Direct Conflict.

25 Fla. L. Weekly S177aNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 25 Fla. L. Weekly S242b

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Underinsured motorist — Bad faith failure to settle claim — Requirement of prior determination of extent of damages suffered by plaintiff as result of uninsured or underinsured tortfeasor’s negligence — Insured’s bad faith action, brought after insured notified insurer that tortfeasor’s insurer had tendered its policy limit and demanded that insurer pay its policy limits, was not precluded where insurer approved settlement between insured and tortfeasor during litigation — An insured’s damages incurred by reason of a violation of section 624.155(1)(b)1 are recoverable from the date that the conditions for payment of benefits under the policy have been fulfilled even though those damages are incurred prior to the determination of liability or the extent of damages

Read More »

NATIONAL SECURITY FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, etc., Petitioners, v. JEFFREY DUNN, Respondent.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D623b

Insurance — Bad faith action against insurer — Discovery — Work product privilege — Court departed from essential requirements of law in allowing plaintiff to inspect insurer’s files regarding bad faith claims in absence of showing of need or inability to obtain substantial equivalent without undue hardship — No abuse of discretion to allow plaintiff to take depositions of insurer’s employees at time when there is no operative complaint pending — Where complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend, decision of whether to allow depositions prior to filing of amended complaint should be left to sound discretion of trial judge — Trial court’s action in denying insurer’s motion to compel plaintiff to post further discovery bond did not depart from essential requirements of law — Any harm resulting from order denying further cost bond is financial only, and financial harm is generally not sufficient harm to justify certiorari review

Read More »

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE FARM, INC., Respondent.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D896a

Insurance — Bad faith — Insured’s first-party bad faith action against insurer, which had disputed amount of coverage on buildings damaged by hurricane and declined to pay full amount claimed by insured, was premature where insured had filed breach of contract action against insurer, court had found for insured on issue of amount of coverage available under policy, but court had not yet determined damages owed to insured — Statutory bad faith action is premature until there is a determination of liability and extent of damages owed on the first-party insurance contract — Error to order insurer to respond to discovery directed to issue of bad faith where statutory bad faith claim has not accrued and been filed

Read More »

MATTHEW JAMES, Appellant, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Appellee.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D531a

Insurance — Automobile liability — Leased vehicles — Court properly entered summary judgment determining that automobile rental agreement contained language which properly shifted responsibility for primary liability coverage from lessor to lessee and his insurance carrier — Error to enter summary judgment on lessee’s claim that he detrimentally relied on misstatements by lessor’s employees in declining to purchase supplemental insurance where there are unresolved facts as to that issue

Read More »

RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. WILLIE WIGGINS, MICHELLE WIGGINS, his wife, ADRIENNE CONINE, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF JACK DAVID DORN, Deceased, and FORT LAUDERDALE LEASING, INC., Appellees.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D1445a

Insurance — Automobile — Coverage — Leased vehicles — Other insurance — Torts — Third-party complaint against insurer which provided contingent coverage designed for long term automobile leasing, filed by automobile lessor who was defendant in litigation arising out of automobile accident occurring while repossessor was driving leased vehicle — Exclusions — For purposes of policy provision that coverage ceases the “date you regain custody of the leased auto,” lessor regained custody of vehicle when independent contractor repossessed the vehicle at the direction of the lessor — Trial court’s finding that repossessor was independent contractor does not relieve lessor, without more, from liability under dangerous instrumentality doctrine for repossessor’s negligence in driving automobile — Based on findings of trial court that repossessor had not converted or stolen vehicle, repossessor’s possession of vehicle was tantamount to lessor’s for purpose of dangerous instrumentality doctrine — Creditor’s duty to repossess car without breach of peace is nondelegable duty, and creditor cannot avoid liability by hiring independent contractor to accomplish the repossession — Error to enter judgment finding coverage

Read More »

FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LAUREN P. GREENE, as Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of ALBERT CLINTON LEAVITT, JR., Respondent.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2213a

Insurance — Automobile liability — Bad faith action by insured against insurer — Discovery — Documents generated before coverage was established through declaratory judgment action are not protected from discovery by attorney-client or work product privilege — Attorney-client communications and work product documents generated to assist insurer in its defense of bad faith claim are exempt from discovery

Read More »

U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. LILIANA CAHUASQUI, Appellee.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D1666f

Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Error to deny attorney’s fees to PIP insurer where insured rejected insurer’s proposal for settlement/offer of judgment made pursuant to Rule 1.442 or section 768.79, and jury found no entitlement to PIP benefits under policy — Section 768.79 applies to PIP claims — Statute does not conflict with section 627.428(1), which permits court to award attorney’s fees to prevailing insured exclusively — Offer of judgment statute does not deny insureds access to courts when applied in PIP cases — Statute has no deterrent effect on filing of PIP suits

Read More »
Skip to content