2002

27 Fla. L. Weekly D1806b

Insurance — Workers’ compensation — Employer’s liability — Plaintiff seeking to recover from insurer the amount of a judgment entered against insureds pursuant to a settlement agreement whereby the insureds admitted liability and conceded damages in specified amount, insureds assigned their rights under policy to plaintiff, and plaintiff agreed to seek to recover under the judgment only against insurer under the policy — Where insurer refused both coverage and a defense to its insured for claims brought by injured employee against insured in a civil action, insurer thereby ceded to its insured control of the litigation and the right to settle the claims — Insurer is bound by settlement waiving defense of workers’ compensation immunity and may not assert that defense against plaintiff’s claim for policy benefits to satisfy the judgment entered against the insured pursuant to settlement agreement — Insurer may not relitigate issue of liability by raising any affirmative defenses that could have been raised in the civil action — Error to grant summary judgment in favor of insurer on ground that exclusive remedy for claims covered by judgment was workers’ compensation benefits — On remand, trial court will have to determine whether employer’s liability policy coverage extended to include plaintiff’s civil action — Workers’ compensation exclusion in employer’s liability coverage does not apply to civil action because the settlement judgment was not an “obligation imposed by worker’s compensation” law, but instead arose from claims in civil action and settlement agreement among parties to that action, neither of which involve obligations imposed by workers’ compensation law — Whether supervisor was insured under policy and whether intentional tort exclusion applies are issues remaining to be determined — If there is coverage, it will be necessary to determine whether amount of judgment is reasonable

27 Fla. L. Weekly D1145b

Insurance — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer in declaratory action in which insured sought coverage and defense for certain counterclaim where dates alleged in counterclaim were clearly outside the term of insurer’s coverage, and insurer was never notified of a claim within its coverage

27 Fla. L. Weekly D2330b

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Torts — Fraud — Action in which insured alleged that insurer fraudulently failed to disclose and pay uninsured motorist benefits that were available under her insurance policy — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in setting aside protective order under which insurer designated as confidential the performance, planning and review evaluations of the personnel involved in handling of insured’s claim — Financial practices that constitute economic fraud are not a “public hazard” under provision of Sunshine in Litigation Act prohibiting court from entering order or judgment which has purpose or effect of concealing a public hazard or any information concerning a public hazard — Protective order, which allowed the parties to designate documents to be produced as confidential, and thereby limit their availability to parties and witnesses involved in litigation, was agreed to by the parties and fairly balanced the discovery and privacy interests involved in the underlying case

27 Fla. L. Weekly D458b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Where PIP insurer was billed for MRI performed on its insured by entity which did not perform the MRI services, county court properly granted insurer’s petitions seeking discovery from the service which did perform the MRI, directing the service which performed the MRI to produce unredacted copy of servicing/leasing agreement with entities who ultimately billed insurer for MRI services, as well as copies of all invoices, bills, and other documentation evidencing the costs of MRI services — Owner of MRI facility which actually rendered MRI services for insured can be required to produce discovery although it has neither accepted an assignment of benefits from the insured nor billed the insurer for its services — No merit to claim that MRI facility should not be required to produce lease agreements with billing entities because lease agreements contain confidentiality clause — Lease confidentiality clause cannot act as a shield to discovery of facts and documentation necessary for an insurer’s determination of benefits — County court had jurisdiction of equity proceeding where amount in controversy in case did not exceed $15,000

27 Fla. L. Weekly D2344d

Insurance — Civil procedure — Discovery — Action against insurer alleging bad faith failure to conduct reasonable investigation of personal injury protection claim — Plaintiff is entitled to discovery of records of payments to physicians who performed independent medical examinations, and insurer cannot avoid disclosure of such records by employing a third party to arrange, schedule, and pay for IMEs on behalf of insurer — Trial court order granting motion for leave to inspect computer system of third party that maintained records for insurer was overly broad in that it set no limitations on the inspection of computer system, notwithstanding third party’s claim that there is confidential and privileged information in its computer system — Remand for trial court to craft narrowly tailored order that accomplishes purposes of discovery requests and provides for confidentiality of the discovery

27 Fla. L. Weekly D1966a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Discovery — Dispute arising from UM insurer’s denial of coverage for injuries sustained by insured’s daughter on ground that daughter was not a “resident” in insured’s Nevada household — Portion of order requiring insurer to produce “copies of all coverage opinions which define resident, residence, and residency” requires the disclosure of protected work product, and trial court departed from essential requirements of law in ordering disclosure of this information — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by requiring insurer to disclose “copies of lawsuits wherein the defendant has been sued” since this information could be obtained by insured through alternative means

27 Fla. L. Weekly D2292b

Insurance — Discovery — Count for common law bad faith failure to defend brought in first-party action against insurer — Insurer which sought certiorari review failed to show irreparable harm — Whether insured’s settlement of underlying claim provides necessary “determination of liability” should await trial of the matter

27 Fla. L. Weekly D1135c

Torts — Insurance — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in compelling insurance company to produce portions of its claim file and to produce a privilege log in personal injury action where insurance company was not a party to the action

27 Fla. L. Weekly D1378b

Venue — State agencies — Home venue privilege — Exceptions — Where plaintiff obtained a money judgment for attorney’s fees in Broward County as result of her successful defense of a libel suit, and initiated proceedings supplementary by impleading Department of Insurance as a defendant, in its limited capacity as a bondholder, and seeking to levy on bond posted by the judgment debtor, a former Department of Insurance viatical settlement provider licensee, trial court had discretion to dispense with Department’s home venue privilege — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that home venue privilege should give way to well-recognized, statutorily-based precept that venue in supplementary proceedings remains where venue began in the underlying action

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 27 Fla. L. Weekly D1378b

27 Fla. L. Weekly D474a

Venue — State agencies — Home venue privilege — Exceptions — Where plaintiff obtained judgment against viatical settlement provider in Broward County, and initiated proceedings supplementary by impleading Department of Insurance as a defendant and seeking to levy on bond posted by viatical settlement provider, trial court had discretion to dispense with Department’s home venue privilege — Because Department was named as an impleaded defendant in the original action already proceeding in Broward Circuit Court, and was sued in its limited capacity as a bond holder, transfer of case would result in new and additional litigation in a different court and would do little to further the policy considerations of the home venue privilege