2005

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1045a

Insurance — Automobile liability — Supplemental liability policy purchased in connection with rental of vehicle — Exclusions — Driving under influence of alcohol — Trial court erred in finding that driving while intoxicated exclusion was not applicable because insurer failed to deliver copy of policy to insured within 60 days after issuance, where notice of exclusion was placed in large print in rental agreement signed by insured — Trial court erred in finding that exclusion for driving while intoxicated violates public policy — Florida public policy does not preclude an exclusion for alcohol impairment in an excess or supplemental liability policy

30 Fla. L. Weekly D2193a

Insurance — Automobile liability — Exclusions — Trial court properly ruled that exclusion in automobile liability policy for any loss caused while insured is committing or attempting to commit a felony is void as against public policy — Trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105 — “Good faith effort to change existing law” theory as basis for avoiding liability for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105 is insufficient to demonstrate that trial court abused discretion in awarding fees, and is not considered by appellate court where raised for first time in appellant’s reply brief

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2193a

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1939c

Insurance — Automobile liability — Exclusions — Trial court properly ruled that exclusion in automobile liability policy for any loss caused while insured is committing or attempting to commit a felony is void as against public policy — Attorney’s fees properly awarded pursuant to section 57.105

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1939c

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1413b

Insurance — Automobile liability — Exclusions — Trial court properly ruled that exclusion in automobile liability policy for any loss caused while insured is committing or attempting to commit a felony is void as against public policy

30 Fla. L. Weekly D2371a

Insurance — Automobile liability — Coverage — Stacking — Where garage liability policy and personal liability policy were issued to two different named insureds, the duplication of coverage provision in personal liability policy could not be used to reduce the available coverage under both policies

30 Fla. L. Weekly S581a
Insurance — Automobile liability portion of garage operations policy — Duty to defend — Insolvent insurers — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Claim for excess judgment in wrongful death action allegedly caused by FIGA’s failure to defend insured — Duty of FIGA to defend a claim against an insured party is identical to that of the insolvent insurer, and, as such, is triggered when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring action within policy coverage — Any doubts with regard to duty to defend must be resolved in favor of insured — Immunity provision of FIGA’s enabling act does not preclude initiation of actions for FIGA’s breach of statutory or contractual duties owed to an insured to defend under the terms of an insurance contract, even though a different form of action alleging that FIGA exercised bad faith in handling the settlement of a claim may not be viable — With regard to permissible damages in a duty to defend action, FIGA’s liability shall not exceed policy limits of insolvent insurer, up to the statutory maximum, plus interest from date of judgment against the insured, if payment of interest is provided for under policy’s supplementary payment provision, as well as statutory interest from date of judgment against FIGA and any attorney’s fees resulting from FIGA’s denial of coverage — FIGA’s arguments that plaintiff failed to present “covered claims” were either decided adversely to FIGA’s position in the entry of the judgment in the underlying action or were properly rejected by the trial court

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1997a

Insurance — Automobile — Bad faith failure to settle — Discovery — Attorney-client privilege — Communications between plaintiff and his counsel regarding counsel’s authority to settle the initial suit against defendant’s insured were privileged — Privilege not waived by filing of bad faith suit against insurer or by plaintiff’s deposition testimony — Motives of plaintiff and his attorney regarding timing of settlement offer and rejection of insurer’s subsequent settlement offer are not elements that plaintiff has to prove to establish a bad faith claim against insurer — Plaintiff did not inject issue of attorney’s authority to settle into litigation just because he could not remember many details about the settlement offer — Although insurer asked plaintiff numerous questions about settlement demand and rejection of insurer’s offer during deposition, plaintiff gave limited responses and did not disclose any specific discussions or substance of any communications with attorney — Portion of order allowing discovery of documents related to counsel’s authority to settle case is quashed

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1471a

Insurance — Automobile — Subrogation — Class action for declaratory decree that defendant’s insureds are entitled to recover up to full extent of their uninsured losses before defendant insurer can participate in any recovery it obtains from third-party tortfeasors — No error in dismissing complaint because insured’s allegations, based on common law “made whole” doctrine, failed to state cause of action as matter of law — Court can find no Florida authority applying “made whole” rule so as to preclude insurer from pursuing subrogation in accordance with the unambiguous subrogation provisions of insurance contract — Florida law does not appear to recognize affirmative right or cause of action by an insured against its insurer to be made whole beyond the payment of insurance policy proceeds

30 Fla. L. Weekly D182b

Insurance — Automobile collision — Automobile insurer will not be held to have violated made-whole doctrine where it returns to its contributorily negligent insured a properly calculated prorated portion of insured’s collision deductible after recovery in a subrogation claim — Order granting class certification to group of insureds reversed

30 Fla. L. Weekly D43a

Insurance — Automobile collision — Subrogation — Actions against insurers alleging insurers violated “made-whole” doctrine by returning only a portion of deductible after insurers recovered from third parties’ insurers an amount less than insurers had paid to insureds — Where insurers received less than total recovery on their subrogation claims because insureds were found to be comparatively negligent and legally responsible for portion of the harm done, insureds were not entitled to receive windfall of being totally absolved from liability — Insureds were made whole where insurers returned deductibles reduced by the percentage the insureds were found to be negligent