2000

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2301a

Insurance — Insured’s action against no-fault insurer to recover payment of medical claims and lost income — Trial court properly ruled that photographs depicting damage to insured’s vehicle as result of accident were inadmissible and could not be referred to at trial after plaintiff objected on ground that defense counsel failed to comply with request to produce and violated pretrial order pertaining to exchange of exhibits — Trial court erred in failing to enforce that ruling when defense counsel elicited testimony from witnesses referring to the photographs — New trial required

25 Fla. L. Weekly D630b

Insurance — Error to enter directed verdict for defendant insurer where jury issues were presented as to whether timely notice was given to carrier and whether, even if not, carrier was prejudiced as result

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2597b

Administrative law — Department of Insurance — Employee Health Care Access Act — Offering and issuing of basic and standard small employer health benefit plans on guaranteed-issue basis to single-member groups — Immediate final order issued by Department of Insurance addressing recent amendments to section 627.6699(5)(c) did not contain sufficient findings establishing an emergency or an immediate danger to public health, safety, or welfare — Department’s interpretation of statutory amendments as requiring open enrollment for every single-member group beginning July 1, 2000, and not requiring any single-member group to wait for open enrollment period in August 2001, seems to render them meaningless — Department’s findings appear insufficient and its conclusions unsupported given that small employer carriers’ interpretation of the statute as requiring that basic and standard plans be offered from July 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001 only to those small employers who are “eligible for renewal” and that thereafter carriers must hold 31-day open enrollment “to every eligible small employer, with less than two eligible employees,” seems reasonable and not in violation of statute

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2644d

Civil procedure — Intervention — Declaratory judgment — Declaratory action by organization of pathologists against health benefits plan, alleging that health benefits plan, which is not required to pay professional component fees charged patients by pathologists, has been sending letters to insured patients telling them that professional component fees are improper and unreasonable, and seeking judgment declaring that letters disseminated by health benefit plan contain deceptive statements, judgment declaring that pathologists are entitled to bill patients directly for professional component of clinical pathology services, and permanent injunction enjoining health benefit plan from disseminating information which misrepresents the legality of the practice of professional component billing — Trial court properly denied patients’ motion to intervene in declaratory action upon finding that patients’ interest was not of such direct and immediate character that they would gain or lose from direct legal operation and effect of judgment — Because patients are not parties to action, declaration could impose no direct liability to them, and their right to contest professional component fee will not be foreclosed — Prospect of losing ability to receive letters which misrepresent legality of professional component billing does not amount to an interest sufficient to justify intervention

25 Fla. L. Weekly D1294d

Appeals — Insurance — Final judgment dismissing declaratory judgment action in which insured sought declaration that she could accept settlement offer without prejudicing her claim to underinsured motorist benefits was not appealable where insured still has pending claims against insurer for underinsured motorist benefits and loss of consortium — Appeal dismissed

25 Fla. L. Weekly D624aNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 25 Fla. L. Weekly D1294d

Appeals — Insurance — Final judgment dismissing declaratory judgment action in which insured sought declaration that she could accept settlement offer without prejudicing her claim to underinsured motorist benefits was not appealable where insured still has pending claims against insurer for underinsured motorist benefits and loss of consortium — Appeal dismissed

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2304a

Insurance — Named peril policy — Coverage — Where policy provided that insurer would not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from theft, except for building damage caused by the breaking in or exiting of burglars, policy did not cover damage caused when unknown persons broke open electric meter box and some electric conduits, pulled out copper electric wire, and stole it — Breaking of meter box and electrical conduit did not constitute breaking in of burglars — Error to deny insurer’s motion for directed verdict on claim relating to theft of electric wire — No error in denial of motion for directed verdict on claim for damage to air conditioning unit where evidence presented a jury issue as to whether such damage resulted from theft, which is not covered under policy, or from vandalism, which is covered — No error in denial of insurer’s post-trial motion for reduction on account of policy deductible and coinsurance where there was no agreement for post-trial reduction on account of policy deductible, and where post-verdict motion did not demonstrate entitlement to reduction under coinsurance provision of policy — No entitlement to new trial on basis of unobjected-to arguments to jury

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2625c

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Limitation of actions — Plaintiff who was injured in Florida accident while driving truck owned by plaintiff’s Georgia employer seeking declaration that he is entitled to UM benefits under employer’s policy — Trial court properly concluded that Georgia statute of limitations applied where employer was Georgia corporation with principal place of business in Georgia, insurance policy was issued by Georgia agent in Georgia, and all vehicles covered by policy were registered and primarily garaged by employer in Georgia — Location of insurer’s regional headquarters not determinative

25 Fla. L. Weekly D2647a

Insurance — General commercial liability — Exclusions — Policy which contained exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising out of ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any auto owned or operated by or rented or loaned to insured, did not provide coverage for injuries suffered by parties whose vehicle collided with tractor and trailer owned by insured which had been negligently parked on roadway outside insured’s premises by insured’s employee — Fact that exclusion contains statement that “use includes operation and `loading and unloading,’ ” does not narrow “use” exclusion so that it applies only to collisions occurring during operation or loading or unloading — Trial court properly entered declaratory judgment finding that insurer has no duty to defend

25 Fla. L. Weekly D648a

Insurance — Commercial general liability — Where policy provision excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any auto owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured, another provision defined “insured” to include employees, but an endorsement eliminated employees acting in the scope of their employment from policy definition of an insured, an ambiguity was created — Insurer had duty to defend and indemnify insured in wrongful death suit resulting from accident in which insured’s employee crashed into car driven by decedent while employee was driving his own truck to tow insured’s cement mixer for repairs — Because policy states that insurer will pay those sums that insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, and insured is legally obligated to pay for damages caused by its employee while acting within the scope of his employment, coverage exists unless policy clearly excludes it — Where an exclusion is capable of being fairly and reasonably read both for and against coverage, the exclusionary clause will be construed in favor of coverage