2001

26 Fla. L. Weekly D2898a

Insurance — Automobile — Collision — Where insurer paid for repair of insured vehicle which had been involved in collision, and completed an excellent repair, insurance policy which was silent with regard to payment for diminished value of a repaired vehicle did not require insurer to compensate insured for inherent diminution in value of vehicle due to fact that it had been involved in a collision

26 Fla. L. Weekly D1506a

Insurance — Automobile collision — Where insurer elected to repair insured vehicle which had been involved in collision, and completed a repair which restored vehicle to its pre-accident level of performance, appearance and function, insurer was not required to also compensate insured for inherent diminution in value of vehicle due to fact that it had been involved in a collision — Question certified: Does an automobile collision policy which provides that the insurer must repair or replace the damaged vehicle “with other of like kind and quality” obligate the insurer to compensate the insured in money for any diminution in market value after the insurer completes a first-rate repair which returns the vehicle to its pre-accident level of performance, appearance and function?

26 Fla. L. Weekly D1125aNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 26 Fla. L. Weekly D1506a

Insurance — Automobile collision — Where insurer elected to repair insured vehicle which had been involved in collision, and completed a repair which restored vehicle to its pre-accident level of performance, appearance and function, insurer was not required to also compensate insured for inherent diminution in value of vehicle due to fact that it had been involved in a collision — Question certified: Does an automobile collision policy which provides that the insurer must repair or replace the damaged vehicle “with other of like kind and quality” obligate the insurer to compensate the insured in money for any diminution in market value after the insurer completes a first-rate repair which returns the vehicle to its pre-accident level of performance, appearance and function?

26 Fla. L. Weekly D1413a

Insurance — Automobile — Cancellation of policy — For purpose of statute under which United States postal proof of mailing of notice of cancellation is sufficient notice of cancellation, whether or not notice was actually received by insured, United States postal proof of mailing must conform to requirements of United States postal regulations — Discovery — Postal employee was improperly permitted to testify as expert witness on postal regulations where witness was listed in pretrial catalog as a lay witness, witness was not identified as a postal employee, and witness was not disclosed as being an expert witness — Error to enter directed verdict for insured in insured’s action on automobile policy where insurer claimed that policy had been canceled, insurer’s proof of mailing was improper, but there was factual issue for jury as to whether insured received notice of cancellation

26 Fla. L. Weekly D1187bNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 26 Fla. L. Weekly D1413a

Insurance — Automobile — Cancellation of policy — For purpose of statute under which United States postal proof of mailing of notice of cancellation is sufficient notice of cancellation, whether or not notice was actually received by insured, United States postal proof of mailing must conform to requirements of United States postal regulations — Discovery — Postal employee was improperly permitted to testify as expert witness on postal regulations where witness was listed in pretrial catalogue as a lay witness, witness was not identified as a postal employee, and witness was not disclosed as being an expert witness — Error to enter summary judgment for insured in insured’s action on automobile policy where insurer claimed that policy had been canceled, insurer’s proof of mailing was improper, but there was factual issue for jury as to whether insured received notice of cancellation

26 Fla. L. Weekly D2483b

Insurance — Automobile — No error in trial court’s confirmation of umpire’s determination of reasonable estimate of costs of repair of insured vehicle — Error to dismiss with prejudice insured’s breach of contract action against insurer, where complaint clearly states that insurer breached insurance policy by failing to repair insured’s vehicle in a timely and proper manner in accordance with its duty under policy which resulted in insured incurring towing and storage costs and loss of business income — In ruling on motion to dismiss for failure to state cause of action, court is confined to consideration of allegations found within four corners of complaint

26 Fla. L. Weekly D478a
780 So.2d 239

Insurance — Automobile — Bad faith — Unfair claim settlement practices — Insured’s action against insurer — Discovery — Privilege — Work product privilege attaches to documents prepared in contemplation of litigation and not for “mere likelihood of litigation” — No error in requiring insurer to produce agent’s statement of certain date, computer diaries and entries from date insured reported accident through certain date, and internal memorandum from claims adjuster to her boss — With respect to certain other documents, court finds they were prepared in anticipation of litigation and are protected, and insureds have not met burden to overcome privilege

26 Fla. L. Weekly D1670b

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Attorney’s fees — Where, during course of litigation for recovery of uninsured motorist benefits, insurer requested that insured sign broad authorizations allowing insurer to obtain insured’s medical records and warned that failure to do so “may result in a denial of coverage,” and insured filed declaratory judgment action seeking declaration that she could not be compelled to execute any authorizations which would lead to ex parte contact by insurer with insured’s health care providers, trial court erred in failing to award insured attorney’s fees incurred in declaratory judgment action after granting insured’s motion for summary judgment on ground that rules of civil procedure rather than insurance contract governed discovery in uninsured motorist action postsuit — Because insurer informed insured that coverage could be denied if insured refused to execute authorizations, declaratory judgment action involved a coverage dispute, and insured was entitled to award of attorney’s fees upon prevailing in that action

26 Fla. L. Weekly D1301a

Insurance — Property damage — Interest — Attorney’s fees — Where payment of appraisal award was made by carrier three weeks after its filing, in accordance with time period specified in insurance contract, trial court erred in awarding “pre-judgment” interest from date appraisal was demanded — Appellate court reendorses its decision in Aries Insurance Co. v. Hercas — Error to deny attorney’s fees for services of counsel in establishing his entitlement to and effecting payment of a previous award of fees, as provided by both an order agreed to by both parties and by section 627.428

26 Fla. L. Weekly D381a

Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Personal injury protection — Trial court acted within its discretion and committed no error in awarding attorney’s fees to medical provider where insurer made payment subsequent to filing of lawsuit — Where insured executed “Appointment as Agent-in-Fact with Power of Attorney,” which according to its language was not an assignment of coverage, but was for purpose of collecting medical bills from insurer, and which empowered provider to sue and collect attorney’s fees on insured’s behalf, provider was entitled to award of attorney’s fees — Insurer’s contention that provider lacked standing to sue not preserved for appellate review — Person who is named an agent for the purpose of collecting money and who is authorized to commence legal action to collect has standing to appeal the matter — Assuming that despite language in power of attorney stating that it was not an assignment, the trial court properly found provider to be insured’s assignee, law supports provider’s entitlement to attorney’s fees under that alternate theory — Insurer’s delay in paying medical bills was not excused by insured’s alleged non-compliance with insurer’s requests for information — Insurer cannot extend thirty-day period by requiring claims to be submitted only on specified in-house claims forms — Once insurer received information it needed to process claim, it had responsibility of contacting insured within thirty-day period to obtain any other information it needed — Single letter to insured was not sufficient, especially in light of fact that insured’s telephone number and correct address were printed on medical provider’s medical claim forms, and that insured was residing at residence of policyholder and owner of vehicle involved in accident