2002

27 Fla. L. Weekly D587b

Workers’ compensation — Enforcement of employer coverage requirements by Division of Workers’ Compensation — Penalties — Substantial competent evidence supported finding that workers were employees, not independent contractors, and that employer did not have required workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees

27 Fla. L. Weekly D623a

Insurance — Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association — Administrative law — Association is not an “agency” for purposes of chapter 120 — Administrative law judge did not have jurisdiction to address challenge to procedures adopted by the Association for review of offers of coverage made by member companies at renewal

27 Fla. L. Weekly S360a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Damages — Additur — Trial court erred in granting additur related to future medical expenses without affording defendant option of a new trial on damages — Error to find that defendant was not entitled to new trial because plaintiffs accepted defendant’s discount rate for determining present value of future medical expenses — Because special verdict forms were used, and record reflects that jurors’ error occurred only in the area of future medical damages, it is appropriate to limit retrial to issue of future medical expenses only

27 Fla. L. Weekly D277a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Multiple rear-end collisions in which first tortfeasor was insured and second tortfeasor was uninsured — Verdict form — Where jury placed a zero by each defendant’s name on verdict form, including the name of the uninsured motorist, where it was asked to indicate “if it is reasonably possible to do so” the percentage of each defendant’s negligence or fault which was legal cause of plaintiff’s injuries, and jury had been instructed that uninsured motorist was negligent and that such negligence was legal cause of loss, injury, or damage to plaintiff, reasonable interpretation of verdict form was not that jury found no liability on part of uninsured motorist, but that jury did not find it reasonably possible to divide the liability into specific percentages — Jury instruction regarding apportionment of liability, which requested jury to apportion liability only if they decided that both plaintiff and one or more of the defendants were negligent, sheds no light on what jury may have meant by its verdict because verdict form did not provide any space for jury to make a determination whether plaintiff was negligent — Trial court erred in ruling that jury was precluded from awarding uninsured motorist damages to plaintiff and derivative loss of consortium damages to insured’s wife based on interpretation that jury found uninsured motorist not liable — Error to find that recovery from UM insurer was barred because plaintiff had settled with an insured joint tortfeasor for less than the joint tortfeasor’s policy limits, which limits were higher than the plaintiff’s uninsured motorist coverage, where there was no finding by jury that uninsured motorist and insured defendant were joint tortfeasors — Jury was not instructed that an issue for its determination was whether any of the defendants were joint tortfeasors, and verdict form did not include question on the issue of joint tortfeasors — Burden of proof — Although normally plaintiffs have initial burden of proving that they are entitled to UM coverage and, where there are two successive accidents, of allocating the injuries, those burdens were eliminated in instant case by jury instruction that uninsured motorist was liable immediately followed by instruction that plaintiff was entitled to recover from uninsured motorist insurer — After reviewing jury instructions and verdict form, appellate court concludes that judgment should be entered in favor of plaintiffs on their claims for UM benefits and loss of consortium — Insurer’s argument that jury intended that disputed award of damages be applied against the first tortfeasor relies on too many unsupported assumptions and would ignore and render meaningless the instruction that the second, uninsured, tortfeasor was negligent, that such negligence caused damages, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover from UM carrier

27 Fla. L. Weekly D550b

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Replacing insured vehicle with another vehicle does not trigger need to offer uninsured motorist coverage on an existing policy where the liability limits of the policy remain the same — Mere substitution of vehicles with no additional changes in coverage constitutes the renewal of an existing policy — Increase in premium as result of insuring a newer model vehicle does not trigger need to offer UM coverage on existing policy — Because insured previously executed knowing waiver of UM coverage, trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of insurer in action to recover UM benefits

27 Fla. L. Weekly D1440b

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Insurer was not required to obtain new UM selection form electing nonstacked coverage when insured added vehicle to existing policy — Plain language of statute makes insured’s original selection of nonstacked UM coverage applicable to all renewals, extensions, and changes to an existing policy unless insured specifically requests a change in UM coverage and pays the additional premium — Final judgment in favor of insureds in claim for stacked UM coverage conflicts with plain language of statute

27 Fla. L. Weekly D105aNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 27 Fla. L. Weekly D447e

Torts — Immunity — Judicial proceedings — Error to dismiss action on ground that claims were barred by litigation privilege because appellate court had previously affirmed summary judgment in favor of another defendant, a law firm, on that ground — Appellate court cannot affirm dismissal on basis of facts not contained in complaint — Allegations that, in order to extort a settlement and put plaintiff out of business, defendants conspired to maliciously give false information to law enforcement authorities resulting in plaintiff being wrongfully arrested, jailed, and charged with crimes, if proved, would not be protected by absolute litigation privilege — Such actions would enjoy, at most, a qualified privilege which could be overcome by proof that false information was given to law enforcement authorities with intent to injure plaintiff — Allegations were sufficient to state cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress — Error to dismiss title insurance agency’s action against title insurance underwriters alleging tortious interference with relationships between plaintiff and its customers on ground that defendants were engaged in relationship with plaintiff — Fact that plaintiff title insurance agency had relationship with defendant title insurers did not preclude plaintiff from suing defendants for interfering with plaintiff’s relationships with its customers

27 Fla. L. Weekly D44aNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 27 Fla. L. Weekly D1149a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Civil procedure — Relief from judgment — Mistake — Absent showing of bad faith, judgment cannot be entered against insurer in excess of policy limits — Policy amount was established in the record, although insurer did not appear and assert defense of policy limits or reveal the limits in discovery, where complaint itself alleged that policy limits were $50,000 — Where insurer failed to answer complaint and default was entered, insurer admitted all well-pled factual allegations of the complaint, including the policy limits alleged — Default precluded insured from contending that policy limits were greater than amount alleged in complaint, and insured could not allege bad faith on part of insurance company without amending her complaint and giving notice to insurer — Entering judgment in excess of policy limits established by record was “mistake,” and trial court erred in failing to grant relief pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(1) — Remand with directions to conform judgment to policy limits as alleged in the admitted pleadings and for reconsideration of issue of attorney’s fees in light of appellate court’s ruling

27 Fla. L. Weekly D1757a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable expenses for necessary medical services — Declaratory action seeking ruling that insurer’s use of a computer-generated database to determine the reasonableness of medical bills is in violation of statute — Error to find that insurer could not decline to pay less than the full amount of a healthcare provider’s bill based solely on computer database, and that insurer’s reliance solely on database would violate statute

27 Fla. L. Weekly D1149a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Civil procedure — Relief from judgment — Mistake — Absent showing of bad faith, judgment in excess of policy limits cannot be entered against insurer — Policy amount was established in record, although insurer did not appear and assert defense of policy limits or reveal the limits in discovery, where complaint itself alleged that policy limits were $50,000 — Where insurer failed to answer complaint and default was entered, insurer admitted all well-pled factual allegations of complaint, including the policy limits alleged — Default precluded insured from contending that policy limits were greater than amount alleged in complaint, and insured could not allege bad faith on part of insurance company without amending her complaint and giving notice to insurer — Nothing in record supports insured’s contention that default was vacated prior to trial — Even if there were no default and all issues were tried and resolved by jury, no notice was given to insurer that insured claimed policy limits in excess of one million dollars instead of the $50,000 alleged in complaint — Judgment based on lack of notice cannot stand