2010

35 Fla. L. Weekly D732b
34 So. 3d 81

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Insurer was not required to include information about UM coverage options in six-month policy renewal notice — Trial court correctly interpreted plain language of statute as requiring only annual notice, even where, as in this case, the policy renews every six months — Trial court correctly found insured was not entitled to UM benefits where insured initially rejected UM coverage and did not elect such coverage for renewal policy period

35 Fla. L. Weekly D2151a
46 So. 3d 94

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — New trial — Trial court did not abuse discretion in granting insured plaintiff a new trial in action against insurer where court had entered summary judgment for plaintiff on liability, and jury awarded plaintiff zero damages upon finding that automobile accident was not a legal cause of any injuries to plaintiff — Trial court did not abuse discretion by finding that jury verdict was contrary to manifest weight of evidence that plaintiff required some reasonable diagnostic testing where no evidence was presented that any of the diagnostic tests that were performed were not reasonable or necessary to determine whether the accident caused plaintiff’s complained of injuries

35 Fla. L. Weekly D1973b
49 So. 3d 272

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Torts — Insured’s action against insurer for injuries which insured alleged were sustained when uninsured motorist rear-ended her vehicle, but which insurer contended were pre-existing and not caused by accident — Damages — Future medical expenses — Excessiveness — Error to deny defendant’s motions for new trial or remittitur, in which defendant contended amount of future medical expenses awarded was excessive in light of jury’s finding of no permanent injury, on ground that defendant was actually arguing that verdict was inconsistent and that this issue had not been preserved by objection prior to discharge of jury — Issue of excessive verdict was preserved where defense counsel raised excessiveness issue in motions for new trial and remittitur — Remand for review of jury’s damage award based on analysis of factors outlined in section 768.043(2) — No abuse of discretion in denying insurer’s motion for mistrial based on cross-examination of defense expert which attempted to show expert was “un-American” because expert outsourced transcription jobs to India and a sexual predator or pervert because he made examinees wear flimsy paper robes during examinations

35 Fla. L. Weekly D2840a

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 36 Fla. L. Weekly D415b

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Where insured filed declaratory judgment action seeking determination of where independent medical examination should take place, it was premature for court to enter summary judgment finding that there was no coverage under policy because insured had failed to undergo independent medical examination as requested by insurer — Insured should be allowed to attend independent medical examination as ordered by court before any coverage issues are determined

35 Fla. L. Weekly D1893a
42 So. 3d 896

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Policy did not provide coverage for separate vehicle owned by named insured’s son although son was a joint owner of his father’s insured vehicle — Son’s vehicle was not covered as a newly acquired auto where son did not notify insurer of purchase of vehicle or seek coverage for that vehicle within thirty-day notice period required by policy

35 Fla. L. Weekly D2626a
49 So. 3d 815

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Policy provision requiring insured to sue owner or driver of uninsured motor vehicle was void against public policy — Error to find that insured was not entitled to UM coverage for failure to comply with this provision — Enforcement of policy provision at issue is fundamental error which must be corrected on appeal, although insured did not raise public policy argument in circuit court

35 Fla. L. Weekly D2873a
53 So. 3d 1084

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Collateral source rule — Trial court did not abuse discretion in permitting insured to introduce into evidence and to request from the jury the gross amount of her medical bills, rather than the lesser amount paid by insured’s private health insurer in full settlement of the medical bills — Claim that trial court erred in denying post-trial motion seeking a new trial or remittitur as to award of future medical expenses because jury’s award of future medical expenses was excessive, given jury’s finding that insured did not sustain a permanent injury — Claim was not preserved for appellate review because verdict was a truly inconsistent verdict, and claim of inconsistent verdict was not raised before jury was discharged

35 Fla. L. Weekly D1751a
41 So. 3d 414

Title insurance — Trial court properly determined that title insurance company was not liable for title insurance agency’s misappropriation of plaintiffs’ escrow deposits for the purchase of condominium units where escrow deposits were received by agency in its limited capacity as escrow agency for developer, and the escrow deposits were not received in connection with a transaction involving the issuance of title insurance binders, commitments, policies of title insurance, or guarantees of title — Escrow deposits did not constitute funds held in trust pursuant to section 626.8473, Florida Statutes

35 Fla. L. Weekly D824d
36 So. 3d 713

Insurance — Title insurance — Action arising out of dispute regarding coverage pursuant to policy of title insurance issued by defendant — Error to dismiss with prejudice a multi-count complaint alleging breach of contract, tort claims, and violations of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and federal racketeering act where plaintiffs could conceivably state viable causes of action with respect to three of the counts, including counts asserting claims for vicarious liability because of a breach of fiduciary duty by the title insurer’s agent, breach of oral contract between plaintiff and title insurer’s agent to procure specific coverage, and promissory estoppel

35 Fla. L. Weekly S201a
39 So. 3d 244

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Stacking — Where insurer issued policy to Florida residents covering vehicles registered and principally garaged in Florida and also issued and delivered to insureds in Florida a policy covering vehicle which was registered and principally garaged in Delaware, an anti-stacking provision in the Delaware policy is unenforceable under Florida law where the insurer did not obtain the insureds’ informed consent to the provision