2003

28 Fla. L. Weekly D722a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — No error in dismissing suit against insurer with prejudice because insured made intentional misrepresentations as to material facts during deposition — Record supports conclusion that insured knowingly and intentionally concealed his lack of employment at time of accident and finding that misrepresentation was central to issue of lost wages, which was integral part of claim against insurer

28 Fla. L. Weekly S227a

Insurance — Employers liability — Coverage — Bodily injury by accident — Spoliation of evidence claims — Plain language of employers’ liability insurance policy, which applies to bodily injury by accident, does not provide coverage for claims against insured for negligent spoliation of evidence — Claim for spoliation of evidence is not claim for “bodily injury by accident” because what is claimed as “accident” is negligent loss of the ladder, and that accident did not result in bodily injury but rather in ladder not being available as evidence in bodily injury claim — Plaintiff’s spoliation claim seeks compensation not for bodily injury he sustained in falling from ladder but, rather, for loss of probable expectancy of recovery in underlying suit

28 Fla. L. Weekly D2009b
855 So. 2d 167

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Venue — Forum non conveniens — Civil procedure — Record does not demonstrate that trial court conducted requisite analysis of applicable factors before dismissing plaintiff’s action against insurer for underinsured motorist benefits and transferring it to foreign state where accident occurred

28 Fla. L. Weekly D1077a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Dismissal — Fraud — Trial court did not abuse discretion in dismissing action against uninsured motorist insurer for benefits arising out of accident on ground that plaintiff, during discovery, actively sought to conceal a subsequent accident, and gave false information regarding the extent and nature of injuries from earlier accidents — Where there is no evidence that plaintiff had any mental incapacity, her misstatements cannot be excused as mere forgetfulness

28 Fla. L. Weekly D568b STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ISAAC GALLMON, Respondent. 2nd District. Case No. 2D02-3439. Opinion filed January 29, 2003.

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 28 Fla. L. Weekly D568b

28 Fla. L. Weekly D330a

Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Privileged work product — In breach of contract action by insured against insurer, seeking more coverage for sinkhole damage than insurer had offered, trial court improperly ordered insurer to disclose internal operating materials and various other items — Materials ordered disclosed were either irrelevant to the first-party dispute or were privileged work product

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2450a

28 Fla. L. Weekly D2751a

Insurance — Discovery — Attorney-client privilege — Crime-fraud exception to privilege — Where insured sued insurer for breach of contract and defamation after insurer had denied claim for property damage, including in its letter of denial the statement that insured had “attempted to commit insurance fraud,” trial court departed from essential requirements of law in finding that defendant insurer had committed fraud by accusing insured of fraud and thereby waived attorney-client privilege under crime-fraud exception to privilege — Under circumstances where insured’s second claim of loss was far in excess of its initial claim of loss which had been settled, insurer knew that insured had not undertaken any repairs to insured property prior to submission of second claim of loss, insurer knew that individual who signed second claim of loss had previously been convicted of insurance fraud, and insurer knew that company which had prepared estimate used in claim of loss was under investigation for improper inflation of insurance estimates, insurer had reasonable belief that insured had attempted to commit insurance fraud

28 Fla. L. Weekly D2744a

Insurance — Liability — Discovery — Attorney-client privilege — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law when it ordered insurer to produce documents which included communications between counsel and insurer involving legal opinions on coverage

28 Fla. L. Weekly D359a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Discovery — Insured’s bad faith action against underinsured motorist insurer which had initially offered to settle insured’s claim for substantially less than full coverage amount, but tendered policy limits after award of damages to insured in negligence action — Trial court improperly granted insured’s renewed motion to compel production of insurer’s “entire claim file,” with the exception of any materials pertaining to underwriting, after prior motions had been denied — Although failure to provide a privilege log generally waives insurer’s right to assert attorney-client and work-product privileges, insurers did not waive right to assert privileges by failure to file privilege log because insurer was entitled to rely on two prior orders that granted insurer’s motion for protective order — Trial court’s finding that insured made sufficient showing that he was unable to obtain necessary information relating to his claim by other means, does not warrant production of entire claim file because that showing only relates to the work-product privilege, not the attorney-client privilege — Remand for trial court to either permit insurer to provide privilege log or for in camera inspection of file by trial court

28 Fla. L. Weekly D2519b

Insurance — Disability — Sickness which manifested itself before policy was issued — Incontestability clause — Where disability policy provided benefits for any sickness which first manifests itself after the date of issue of the policy, and insured’s degenerative eye disease was diagnosed and treated prior to issuance of the policy, insurer properly denied claim for disability benefits based on insured’s eye disease although claim was submitted beyond policy’s two-year incontestability period — Incontestability clause does not apply to claim that falls outside policy’s scope of coverage