2009

34 Fla. L. Weekly D1592b
17 So. 3d 770
Insurance — Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act — Voluntary liquidation and rehabilitation — Objection to approval of claims report in which insurer recommended that claimants, who had obtained judgments in medical negligence suits against members of insurer’s self-insurance fund in amounts in excess of policy limit, be limited to recovering the policy limit — Claimants were not required to obtain an excess judgment or a finding of bad faith before insurer voluntarily sought liquidation — IRLA statutory scheme clearly envisions that some claims will be based on events that occur before liquidation is initiated, and that such claims are not precluded merely because judgment is obtained after liquidation, or because judgment exceeds policy limits — Trial court had discretion as to what weight to place upon claimants’ final judgments in the claims objection process where, although medical negligence suits were brought before insurer’s voluntary placement in receivership, judgments were not obtained until two and six years after receivership process began — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting claimants’ allegations of bad faith on part of insurer and determining that recovery should be limited to policy limit — Trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to award claimant monies beyond policy limit for litigation costs, interest, or liens or in approving insurer’s motion for approval of distribution

34 Fla. L. Weekly D1533a
21 So. 3d 137

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 34 Fla. L. Weekly D2282a

Contracts — Insurance — Florida Kidcare Act — Health maintenance organization’s action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty against Florida Healthy Kids Corporation, alleging that defendant erroneously determined that a special needs child could be enrolled in the FHKC program, with the result that plaintiff was obligated to provide child with medical costs exceeding $300,000 — Trial court misinterpreted controlling statutes when it concluded that defendant did not breach its contract with plaintiff by enrolling child in FHKC program — Child with special health care needs and family income exceeding 200% of federal poverty level is allowed to participate in Children’s Medical Services Network, a program specifically designed to cover children with special needs, and it was error to find that child was ineligible for CMS program due to her family’s income

34 Fla. L. Weekly D2282a
21 So. 3d 137

Contracts — Insurance — Florida Kidcare Act — Health maintenance organization’s action for breach of contract against Florida Healthy Kids Corporation, alleging that defendant erroneously determined that a special needs child could be enrolled in FHKC program because she was ineligible to be enrolled in Children’s Medical Services Network due to her family’s income — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment finding that defendant did not breach contract with plaintiff by enrolling child in FHKC program — Child with special health care needs and family income exceeding 200% of federal poverty level is allowed to participate in Children’s Medical Services Network, a program specifically designed to cover children with special needs, and it was error to find that child was ineligible for CMS program due to her family’s income

34 Fla. L. Weekly D2300a
25 So. 3d 13

Insurance — Long-term care — Provision in home health care policy which provides coverage for secondary services, such as a home health aide, only when such services are received in a week in which primary services, such as registered nurse, are received, is forbidden by statute — Application of statute to invalidate provision in policy which was first issued prior to the effective date of the statute does not amount to an unconstitutional impairment of contract where the policy was renewed a number of times after the effective date of the statute — Renewal of contract of insurance generally constitutes the making of a new contract for purpose of incorporating into policy changes in statutes regulating insurance contracts — Further, policy is ambiguous and misleading

34 Fla. L. Weekly S111a
2 So. 3d 209

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Subrogation — Limitation of actions — Where uninsured motorist insurer refused to grant insured permission to accept underinsured tortfeasor’s liability insurer’s tender of its policy limit in settlement of claim, and paid insured the amount of the settlement offer, preserving its subrogation rights against tortfeasor, uninsured motorist insurer had right to pursue its subrogation claim only after final resolution of the uninsured motorist claim — Statute of limitations for bringing of an uninsured motorist subrogation action begins to run from the time of the final resolution of the uninsured motorist claim

34 Fla. L. Weekly D886a
8 So. 3d 1242

Insurance — Renewable term life insurance policy — Notice of right to renew — There is no basis upon which an owner of a renewable term life insurance policy is entitled to receive notice of the right to renew beyond the notice in the policy itself — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment finding plaintiff was, by virtue of a dissolution of marriage decree, the equitable owner of a ten-year, renewable, life insurance policy her former husband had purchased and, for that reason, was entitled to notice, as the end of the original term approached, of her right to renew the policy

34 Fla. L. Weekly D1547a
16 So. 3d 904

Insurance — Errors and omissions — Third party administrators professional liability policy — Coverage — There was no coverage under policy for action against insured by plaintiff who marketed health maintenance organization products for insured, alleging that insured breached marketing agreement and interfered with plaintiff’s business relationships by insured’s deliberate, intentional, and systematic actions — Actions of insured, as alleged in complaint, were not done in the performance of professional services for plaintiff, and did not amount to negligent acts, errors, or omissions — Insurer had no duty to defend and no duty to indemnify insured for sums it paid in settlement

34 Fla. L. Weekly D1585a
18 So. 3d 9

Insurance — Liability — Medical payments — Policy which provided MedPay coverage, regardless of fault, for bodily injury caused by an accident on ways next to premises owned or rented by insured did not provide coverage for injuries suffered in an accident on the public highway in front of the shopping center in which insured rented a building where the shopping center and the shopping center parking lot were separated from the highway by two swales and a sidewalk — Highway where accident occurred was not “next to” the insured premises

34 Fla. L. Weekly D2439a
23 So. 3d 1232

Insurance — Business owners — Exclusions — Professional services exclusion in policy issued to physician which excluded coverage for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury or advertising injury due to rendering or failure to render any professional service — Trial court properly determined that exclusion excluded coverage for services performed by insured’s wife in filing, and making the insured aware of, lab reports — Trial court properly found that insured’s wife, who not only performed clerical tasks, but also assisted insured in all aspects of his practice, was a medical assistant and that her duties included the rendering of professional services — Although insurer had no duty to indemnify, trial court properly found that insurer had duty to defend because complaint against insured in wrongful death action alleged facts that fell within the insuring language of the policy

34 Fla. L. Weekly D1001a
12 So. 3d 276

Insurance — Liability — Discovery — Where insurer had denied coverage, trial court improperly denied insurer protection from notice of deposition directed to president of insurance company regarding policies and procedures concerning claims handling by insurer — Discovery which concerns only potential issues of bad faith or other purported improprieties in defending the claim is impermissible unless and until it is determined that policy provides coverage