2006

31 Fla. L. Weekly D897a

Workers’ compensation — Insurance — Assessments on workers’ compensation carriers for Special Disability Trust Fund and Workers’ Compensation Administration Trust Fund based on net premiums written and net premiums collected — Department of Labor and Employment Security was not estopped, because of communications between carrier’s agents and Department personnel, from challenging carrier’s deductions from net premiums of ceded premiums paid by carrier to reinsurers and brokerage fees and commission paid to agents — Carrier did not establish exceptional circumstances necessary for application of equitable estoppel against governmental entity

31 Fla. L. Weekly D724a

Torts — Workers’ compensation immunity — Trial court properly dismissed complaint against workers’ compensation insurance carrier alleging that carrier acted in bad faith during course of claims process, where complaint did not allege intentional and outrageous conduct that would establish an independent tort

31 Fla. L. Weekly D802a

Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Workers’ compensation — Section 627.428, Florida Statutes, which authorizes award of attorney’s fees for insureds who successfully sue their insurers, does not authorize attorney’s fees in workers’ compensation cases — Award of attorney’s fees incurred in rule nisi proceeding was proper

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1835d

Insurance — Windstorm — Contracts — Agreement for deed — No error in requiring insured to release proceeds from windstorm insurance settlement to mortgagee, who intended to apply the entirety of the insurance proceeds to the principal amount due on the mortgage, even though this would make it difficult or impossible for insured to repair the significant structural damage to his mobile home — Where agreement for deed required borrower to keep buildings on property “insured against loss by fire, windstorm and tornado” to the extent of the value of such improvements and agreed “that the proceeds of any such insurance policies shall be applied to the payment of the indebtedness herein, or at the option of the first party, to the repair or replacement of the improvements upon said property,” as long as the outstanding indebtedness on the agreement exceeded the amount of the insurance settlement, the agreement gave the lender the sole and unfettered right to decide whether an insurance payment for windstorm damage was to be used to repair the property

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1798a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Evidence — Payment of personal injury protection benefits — Insurer’s payment of PIP benefits in connection with an automobile accident is not relevant to issue of whether medical expenses claimed in insured’s uninsured motorist claim are reasonable, necessary, or connected to the accident, and evidence of such payment is not admissible for that purpose — Error in admission of evidence of insurer’s payment of PIP claims in insured’s action for underinsured motorist benefits was harmless where issue was not a feature of the trial, and evidence was sufficient to support insured’s claim that she had herniation in spinal discs as result of accident which necessitated surgery

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1433a
929 So. 2d 702

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Court did not err in awarding underinsured motorist insurer a setoff against jury verdict in insured’s favor for payment made to insured by tortfeasor’s automobile insurance carrier, where the jury award duplicated the benefits insured received from tortfeasor’s insurer — Jury’s award was a total award even though jury found there was no permanent injury and made no monetary award for non-economic damages — Award of no damages for insured’s pain and suffering was not erroneous where insured failed to demonstrate that she suffered permanent injury as result of accident

31 Fla. L. Weekly D964a

Civil procedure — Dismissal — Fraud on court — Court abused discretion in dismissing action for uninsured motorist benefits for fraud on court based on discrepancies between plaintiff’s discovery responses and evidence developed by defendant in its investigation of plaintiff’s claim

31 Fla. L. Weekly D776c

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Limit of coverage — Each person/each accident — Pain and suffering damages suffered by insured’s wife and child as consequence of witnessing the death of insured in an Alabama automobile accident — Wife and child’s pain and suffering damages, which were independently recoverable under applicable tort law of Alabama as part of their own bodily injuries arising from the accident, were subject to the “each accident” limit of coverage rather than the “each person” limit of coverage — Trial court properly rejected insurer’s claim that proceeds available for wife and child’s pain and suffering damages under policy’s coverage provisions were exhausted when insurer paid husband’s estate the policy limits for bodily injury for “each person”

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1320a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Error to fail to limit judgment on UM claim to policy limits where there was no basis pleaded or litigated in case for damages greater than UM coverage afforded by insurer — Insureds did not include claim for bad faith in their complaint, but asserted only a claim for UM benefits under specified policy number — Reference to separate umbrella/excess coverage policy in response to insureds’ counsel’s request for information under section 627.4137 not basis for reading excess coverage limits into UM coverage — With respect to insureds’ contention that they did not know limits of UM policy, as parties to both UM and umbrella policies, insureds were charged with knowledge of policies’ contents and were bound by policies’ terms — Assuming that it was somehow necessary for insurer to offer evidence as to amount of UM policy limits, there was nothing improper or insufficient about its post-verdict affidavit — Remand with instructions to reduce judgment to UM policy limits

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1951a

Insurance — Business automobile policy — Uninsured motorist — No error in holding that underinsured motorist coverage provided by insurer on a business automobile insurance policy issued to unincorporated business did not provide coverage for the business owner’s minor son when, as a pedestrian, he was struck by an underinsured motorist — A business automobile insurance policy issued in Florida insuring exclusively business or commercial vehicles is not statutorily compelled to utilize a definition of “insured” that would provide uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage to a family member of the owner of the insured commercial vehicle when the family member is struck as a pedestrian, and policy at issue did not voluntarily provide coverage for this claim — If insureds desired to have higher limits of uninsured motorist coverage, they were free to purchase that coverage on their family automobiles