2006

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1411b

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Claim arising out of accident which occurred when insured became involved in automobile chase of criminal suspect while he was on duty as deputy sheriff — Future medical and wage benefits — Setoff — Future workers’ compensation benefits — Bifurcation of trial — No error in refusing to bifurcate trial of uninsured motorist insurer from that of negligent motorist — With respect to claim that trial court should have limited testimony and evidence describing negligent motorist’s criminal conduct, to the extent that any irrelevant evidence was admitted over objection, error was harmless — Damages — Court is not authorized to give UM insurer a set off for future medical and wage benefits that are likely to be available for insured under workers’ compensation coverage

31 Fla. L. Weekly D2818a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Failure to disclose and pay benefits — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in allowing insured’s statutory bad faith claim to proceed without prior determination of liability and extent of damages allegedly owed on insurance contract — However, insurer failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm that cannot be adequately remedied on appeal

31 Fla. L. Weekly D2495a
939 So. 2d 1113

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Discovery — Claims file — Attorney-client privilege applies in first-party bad faith action — Question certified: Does the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005), relating to discovery of work product in first-party bad faith actions brought pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes, also apply to attorney-client privileged communications in the same circumstances?

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1445a

Attorney’s fees — Offer of settlement — Nominal offer — Insurance — Uninsured/underinsured motorist — Insurer had reasonable basis for making nominal settlement offer in amount of $500 where at time it made offer, insurer was aware of insured’s past medical expenses, but was also aware that insured had received a settlement in excess of $200,000 from owner of vehicle that had struck her vehicle from behind

31 Fla. L. Weekly D850a

Insurance — Automobile liability — Subrogation — Insurer was not entitled to recover amount of bodily injury damages paid to injured party in subrogation action against defendant where insurer did not prove that it paid all of injured party’s damages or that it obtained a release of defendant from the injured party

31 Fla. L. Weekly D238d

Insurance — Subrogation — Releases — Error to grant motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants in subrogation action brought by insurer seeking to recover comprehensive collision insurance and uninsured motorist benefits paid to its insured on ground that insured, in settlement of separate lawsuit against the defendants, released all claims against defendants and agreed to indemnify them for any claim relating to the accident — Settlement executed by insured cannot act as bar to action for subrogation by insurer against third-party tortfeasor where tortfeasor knew of insurer’s perfected subrogation rights prior to entering into settlement agreement with insured

31 Fla. L. Weekly D654a
922 So. 2d 353

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Stacking — Class action for money had-and-received against insurer by insured who paid premiums for and received stacked uninsured motorist coverage during years when she owned only one automobile — Because insurer complied with statutory requirement by giving insured option each year of choosing stacked or non-stacked coverage, and insured failed to select non-stacked coverage, complaint failed to state cause of action and was properly dismissed — Further, an insured who purchases stacked coverage receives certain benefits even when only one vehicle is owned

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1315b

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Attorney’s fees — Because insured did not reject uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage in writing, he was entitled to this coverage by operation of law — Where insurer denied coverage which actually existed, insurer breached contract and could not rely upon contractual provision prohibiting the insured from settlement of claim with a responsible party in order to relieve itself of liability — By virtue of insurer’s breach, insured was relieved of obligation to notify insurer of its settlement with responsible party — Insurer could not cure its breach by subsequent offer of UM coverage conditioned upon insured’s payment of premium — Attorney’s fees — No error in trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to insured — No abuse of discretion in refusing to apply risk multiplier in determining amount of fee award

31 Fla. L. Weekly D257c

Insurance — Settlement agreement — Attorney’s fees — Retaining lien — No error in directing insurer to wire settlement funds to trust account of insured’s former counsel, as required by terms of settlement agreement — No error in ruling that insurer properly transmitted settlement funds to former counsel by bank check — Although insured claims that settlement agreement contemplated payment by an “immediately cashable” instrument, this argument is unavailing — Settlement agreement provided for payment by either “bank check” or “cashier’s check” and insured did not bargain for a more restrictive meaning for the term “bank check” — No error in granting former counsel’s motion for lien on funds — Former counsel had right to retaining lien on all of client’s property held by attorney, including money collected for the client, to cover balance due for legal work done for client

31 Fla. L. Weekly S882a

Insurance — Performance bond — Bad faith refusal to settle claim under performance bond — Obligee of a surety contract qualifies as an “insured” and is therefore entitled to sue its surety for bad faith refusal to settle claims pursuant to section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (1999) — Language of section 624,155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (1999), eliminates the requirement of proof of a general business practice when a plaintiff pursues a section 626.9541 claim through the right of action provided by section 624.155(1)(b)(1) — Arbitration panel’s findings that a surety’s principal has breached its duty to the obligee and that the surety is obligated to the extent that its principal is bound satisfies the condition precedent to a section 624.155 bad faith refusal to settle claim — Arbitration panel’s finding that a surety’s principal has breached its duty to the obligee and that the surety is obligated to the extent that its principal is bound does not bar a later claim against a surety for bad faith refusal to settle under section 624.155 under doctrine of res judicata — Arbitration panel’s denial of defendant’s affirmative defense in breach of contract claim collaterally estops same defendant from raising those affirmative defenses in subsequent section 624.155 bad faith refusal to settle when the essential elements of collateral estoppel are present