2000

25 Fla. L. Weekly D1767c

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Statute, which permits insureds who claim PIP benefits to sue insurer but requires medical care providers to whom claims have been assigned to submit claims to arbitration, constitutes unconstitutional violation of right of medical providers to access to courts — Circuit court properly affirmed county court’s order denying insurer’s request for arbitration of medical provider’s claim for benefits

25 Fla. L. Weekly D746a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Arbitration — Dispute between medical provider and insurer — Attorney’s fees — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of law in finding the prevailing party’s attorney’s fee provision in section 627.736(5) to be unconstitutional — Circuit court’s determination that mandatory arbitration provision is constitutional constitutes a departure from essential requirements of law and results in miscarriage of justice in view of recent Florida Supreme Court decision holding statute unconstitutional

25 Fla. L. Weekly D545a

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Insurer must comply with appraisal provision in policy which requires forced appraisals for disputes involving amount of loss, where insurer asserts that insured’s loss is not covered under policy, and insured contends that loss is covered in whole or in part and demands appraisal — Where insurer contended that destruction of insured’s residence was caused by storm surge and that loss was not covered under policy, and insured contended that loss was caused by covered peril of windstorm, trial court erred in failing to require parties to proceed with appraisal process when insured filed complaint for declaratory relief seeking order declaring right to appraisal — No merit to claim that appraisal process should address both amount of loss and its cause

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2558bNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 25 Fla. L. Weekly D2643e

Insurance — Discovery — Where insured vehicle was involved in collision with plaintiff’s mobile home, insured’s liability insurer obtained release from plaintiff for payment of $1,000, plaintiff sued insured for negligence and insured raised as defense the release previously given by plaintiff, and plaintiff sued insurer in separate action alleging that insurer engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in obtaining the release and engaged in exploitation of the elderly, court did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for discovery of insurer’s files relating to accident and certain internal files — It was not necessary that claim against insured be decided before independent tort action against insurer could be maintained

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2036cNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 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

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2069a

Insurance — Automobile liability — Exclusions — Survivor of insured who died as result of automobile accident seeking benefits under liability portion of policy for insured’s wrongful death — Where plain language of policy excluded coverage for bodily injury to insured or any member of insured’s family, and bodily injury was defined in policy as including death, policy provided no coverage for wrongful death of insured — Where an insured cannot make claim for bodily injury or death under policy, survivor’s claim for those losses is similarly excluded from coverage — Family exclusion is not void as against public policy

25 Fla. L. Weekly S211a

Insurance — Automobile liability — Where policy listed coverage for both tractor and trailer, and separate premium was listed for each separately listed coverage included for each insured vehicle, tractor and trailer should each be treated as single covered vehicle when they were involved in accident while tractor was pulling trailer — If insurer had intended to treat two separately covered vehicles as a single covered automobile when operated in tandem, it could have drafted policy to achieve that result, and, by failing to do so, insurer cannot take position that tractor-trailer rig should be treated as one automobile — Policy limitation of liability clause, when read in conjunction with entire policy, did not unambiguously limit coverage to coverage provided for single vehicle when multiple covered vehicles are involved in single accident — Reasonable interpretation of limitation of liability clause is that it serves as an anti-stacking clause that prevents the stacking of liability coverages for vehicles not involved in the accident — Because both tractor and trailer had separate liability coverages of $750,000 per occurrence, total available liability coverage for accident that involved both vehicles is $1,500,000

25 Fla. L. Weekly D893a
754 So. 2d 863

Insurance — Automobile liability — Coverage — Temporary substitute auto — After acquired vehicle — Where business auto policy provided that a person is an insured only if that person is using one of vehicles listed as covered autos in policy, and covered vehicle was driven to automobile dealership for purpose of trading it in on a new vehicle, policy provided no coverage for accident which occurred while insured was test-driving vehicle owned by dealership — Dealer’s vehicle, which was being driven by insured at time of accident, was not a temporary substitute auto or an after acquired vehicle as defined under policy

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2078a

Insurance — Automobile liability — Cancellation of policy — Plaintiff who was involved in accident with vehicle driven by employee of towing company and who obtained judgment against the company seeking declaration that liability policy issued by insurer was in full force and effect on date of accident, despite insurer’s claim that policy had been properly canceled for nonpayment of premiums — Section 627.848(5) and notice of cancellation sent to insured clearly provided that insurer would give notice to any governmental agency, mortgagee or other third party if policy or statute required such notice — Factual issues exist as to whether policy complied with county ordinance requiring that “insurance” for business engaged in towing provide for thirty days’ notice of any change or cancellation to county’s Consumer Affairs Division and whether insurer had duty under policy to provide notice to CAD prior to cancellation of policy

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2587a

Civil procedure — Default — Insurance — Error to deny motion to set aside default judgment entered against tortfeasor’s insurer in action filed by injured plaintiff who had obtained judgment against insured — Insurer’s affidavit established that even if suit papers reached insurer’s agents, they were either lost or misplaced and did not reach appropriate parties, insurer showed due diligence in immediately hiring attorneys to set aside default, and insurer asserted meritorious defense that insured did not notify insurer of negligence action against him and that plaintiff had exaggerated the injuries he sustained in minimum contact automobile accident