fbpx

2000

Case Search

BANKERS SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. ROBERT W. BRADY, JR., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D1982c
765 So. 2d 870c Insurance — Homeowners — Settlement agreement — Where adjuster for insurer and adjuster for insured reached oral agreement regarding amount of loss to dwelling as result of lightning strike and fire, and behavior of parties indicated that insurer’s adjuster had settlement authority which he exercised before being taken off the case, there was a valid settlement agreement — Trial court properly entered summary judgment for insured in action against insurer for breach of settlement agreement — Insurer did not properly invoke appraisal provision of policy where parties, through their adjusters, had agreed to amount of loss — Attorney’s fees were properly awarded to insured who prevailed in action to enforce settlement agreement — Policy provision for insurer to pay 80% of additional living expenses did not constitute coinsurance, and statutory notice of coinsurance was not required — Portion of policy providing for payment of living expenses off premises was not an insurance policy or contract covering either real or personal property

Read More »

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. PETER JOHNSON and CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Appellees.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2853a

Insurance — Appraisal — Property insurance on rental residential property — Where insureds claimed that damage to insured property was caused by sinkhole, a covered peril, insurer determined that damage was caused by earth movement, an excluded peril, and insureds instituted suit for breach of insurance contract, trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion for stay in favor of appraisal — Causation is an amount of loss issue for appraisal panel rather than a coverage question for the court

Read More »

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. ALBERTO CRUZ and ANGELA CRUZ, Appellees.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2055b

Insurance — Civil procedure — Stay of execution — Homeowners insurer’s motion to stay execution on partial judgment entered upon confirmation of appraisal award on ground that insurer had pending coverage defenses which might act as total bar to recovery, and that such defenses constituted good cause why stay should be granted — Where trial court gave insurer, as alternative to posting bond, the option of putting funds in insureds’ attorney’s trust account, and insurer refused that alternative, court did not abuse its discretion in denying stay of execution

Read More »

MICHAEL N. OPAR and CAROLYN K. OPAR, Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

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

Read More »

MARIANO R. GONZALEZ and RENE GONZALEZ, Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2614bNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 26 Fla. L. Weekly D390a

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Where homeowners filed claim for damage to home allegedly caused by blasting, a covered peril, and insurer denied claim on ground that damage was caused by settling of foundation, an excluded peril, and claim was submitted to appraisal, appraiser did not have authority to determine that damage was caused by settling and was not covered by policy — Question of whether loss was caused by covered peril or excluded peril was for court rather than appraiser — Trial court erred in confirming appraisal award of zero — Insurer did not waive right to appraisal by failing to request appraisal prior to insureds’ filing of lawsuit — Insurer did not waive right to appraisal by participating in litigation filed by insureds

Read More »

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. PETER JOHNSON and CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Appellees.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2853a

Insurance — Appraisal — Property insurance on rental residential property — Where insureds claimed that damage to insured property was caused by sinkhole, a covered peril, insurer determined that damage was caused by earth movement, an excluded peril, and insureds instituted suit for breach of insurance contract, trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion for stay in favor of appraisal — Causation is an amount of loss issue for appraisal panel rather than a coverage question for the court

Read More »

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a reciprocal inter-insurance exchange, Appellant, v. EUGENE FRANCIS CLARKE, PHYLLIS CLARKE, his wife, PATSY TRAYNOR and WILLIAM C. TRAYNOR, Appellees.

25 Fla. L. Weekly D1022c

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Rescission of policy — Material misrepresentations on application — Waiver — Applicant’s misrepresentation of his military status on application was material where insurer was reciprocal inter-insurance exchange which limited membership to active, retired, and former commissioned military officers and their families and which was not open to general public — Insurer was entitled to void policy due to insured’s material misrepresentation — Error to hold that insurer waived its right to rescind policy because birth date and commission date noted on application, which if accurate would have made insured a commissioned officer at age 17, gave insurer constructive knowledge of misrepresentation — Evidence showed that information on applicant’s birth and commission dates was provided over the phone to insurer’s senior sales representative who input information on different computer screens that did not display two dates next to each other so that age discrepancy was not readily apparent and did not call attention to any situation leading to further inquiry

Read More »
Skip to content