2005

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1786b

Insurance — Homeowners — Bodily injury liability — Exclusions — Business — Day care center — Coverage for wrongful death of child who was allegedly negligently supervised in the course of home day care business was excluded by business exclusion as clarified by home day care endorsement of policy — Trial court erred in finding that home day care endorsement is ambiguous because it contains the sentence, “This endorsement does not constitute a reduction in coverage” — Coverage is excluded if child’s injuries arose out of or in connection with regular provision of home day care services for monetary or other compensation as long as child is not an insured or a relative, and the compensation was not the mutual exchange of home day care services — Even payment as reimbursement for expenses in home day care constitutes compensation for purposes of home day care endorsement

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1786b

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1005a

Insurance — Homeowners — Bodily injury liability — Exclusions — Business — Home day care — Coverage for wrongful death of child who was allegedly negligently supervised in the course of home day care business was excluded by business exclusion as modified by home day care endorsement of policy — Trial court erred in finding that home day care endorsement is ambiguous because it contains the sentence, “This endorsement does not constitute a reduction in coverage” — Coverage is excluded if child’s injuries arose out of or in connection with regular provision of home day care services for monetary or other compensation as long as child is not an insured or a relative, and the compensation was not the mutual exchange of home day care services — Even payment as reimbursement for expenses in home day care constitutes compensation for purposes of home day care endorsement

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1073a

Insurance — Liability — Exclusions — Pollution — Loss arising out of governmental direction that named insured test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify or neutralize pollutants — Trial court properly found that expenses incurred by county in course of remedying pollution as provided by consent order and settlement agreement between Department of Environmental Protection and county were excluded from coverage by government direction exclusion

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1136b

Insurance — Liability — Exclusions — Professional services — Products-completed operations — Where insured inspected and maintained hoists which were owned by a customer and located at the customer’s facility, insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify insured for claim for damages occurring when one of the hoists which had been inspected by insured failed and dropped a jet engine — Professional services exclusion in policy was not applicable to inspection and maintenance work performed by insured because personnel who perform inspections on hoists are not required to have any specialized training or experience — Because damages alleged to have been caused by insured resulted from work that insured had completed five months prior to the accident, the policy’s “products-completed operations exclusion” excludes coverage for the damages

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1213a

Insurance — Windstorm — Homeowners — Claims against Florida Windstorm Underwriters Association and homeowners insurer for wind-driven rain damage resulting from rain that entered homes through window and sliding glass door openings, and by seeping through second floor patio tiles and cracks in stucco — Where court entered summary judgment against FWUA and summary judgment for homeowners insurer in a single document, and FWUA filed appeal, insureds’ cross-appeal of the summary judgment for homeowners insurer was not a valid cross-appeal, but was rather an untimely appeal from a separate and different judgment than that appealed by FWUA — Exclusions — Coverage for damage was excluded by wind-driven rain exclusion in FWUA policy — Court erred in finding that FWUA was responsible for covering damage because FWUA later amended its policies to cover wind-driven rain damage, because FWUA participated in damages appraisal of insured homes, and because the wind-driven rain exclusion is against public policy — Wind-driven rain exclusion is not void as against public policy

30 Fla. L. Weekly D820b

Insurance — Marine insurance — Exclusions — Racing — Term “any speed race” used in policy exclusion is not ambiguous and means any race, regardless of whether it is officially sanctioned or impromptu — Fact that term is not defined by policy does not render the term ambiguous — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insured on ground that exclusion was ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of insureds as excluding only officially organized and sanctioned powerboat races

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1428a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Where insured filed action for uninsured motorist benefits and thereafter notified insurer that he would assert a bad faith claim under section 624.155, thereby triggering sixty-day period in which insurer could resolve claim and eliminate exposure for bad faith, insurer tendered payment of policy proceeds, insured asserted that tender was untimely, court issued pretrial ruling that tender was untimely, and verdict was returned for insurer, trial court properly ruled that insured could not retain payment which had been made by insurer — By successfully taking the pretrial position that tender was untimely, insured rejected the tendered payment and could not retain the payment — Evidence — Expert — Court erred in allowing insurer’s expert to answer questions about photographs of insured’s car where court had previously ruled the photographs inadmissible — Error was harmless under circumstances — No merit to insured’s claim that verdict was against manifest weight of evidence as to accident which lengthened recovery time from jaw surgery for TMJ — Mere delay in recovery is not itself a permanent injury

30 Fla. L. Weekly D331a

Insurance — Excess liability — Business pursuits exclusion — Personal umbrella policy does not provide coverage for injuries occurring at apartment complex owned by insured — Personal umbrella policy which excluded from coverage injury arising from premises of rental properties owned by anyone covered by policy unless also covered by insurance under a homeowners, comprehensive personal liability, or farmers personal comprehensive personal liability policy, did not provide coverage for injury occurring at apartment complex because commercial lines policy covering apartment complex does not qualify as a homeowners or farmowners personal protection policy, or a personal liability policy of any type

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1063a

Insurance — Workers’ compensation — Promissory estoppel — Where workers’ compensation insurer had informed insured by letter that its policy would not cover employees who were working on navigable waters because coverage for those workers had to be obtained pursuant to federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act and could not be provided by insurer, attaching to the letter a document entitled “Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Exclusion Endorsement,” and insurer, after conducting a second inspection of insured’s business, sent insured a second letter stating that its initial survey was accurate, trial court erred in entering summary judgment finding that insurer was estopped from refusing to pay losses insured incurred due to lack of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act coverage because insured had reasonably relied on insurer’s representation that it covered all activities of insured’s employees — Trial court improperly found that, as a matter of law, insurer’s second letter was a representation of coverage — Determination of whether insured’s reliance on what it understood to be a representation of coverage was reasonable involved resolution of factual issues, which precluded summary judgment

30 Fla. L. Weekly D77b

Insurance — Liability — Coverage — Error to consider parol evidence to determine intent of parties with regard to coverage of premises where personal injury occurred where insurance policy was not ambiguous with regard to coverage of the premises — Promissory estoppel — Case does not involve circumstances that would place it within narrow exceptions to general rule that estoppel will not operate to create or extend coverage where coverage does not exist