2011

36 Fla. L. Weekly D2240a
78 So. 3d 583
Insurance — Property — Exclusions — Flood — Error to enter summary judgment for insured finding that policy covered damage to insured’s automobile dealership when heavy rainfall caused storm water drainage systems adjacent to dealership to overflow — There was disputed issue of material fact as to whether property was damaged by flood waters, an excluded peril, or by storm drainage water backup

36 Fla. L. Weekly D265a
55 So. 3d 636

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Umbrella policy — Stacking — Trial court properly determined that policy issued to insured who owned four automobiles was a non-stacking policy where a single premium was paid for coverage, and no separate premium paid for each automobile

36 Fla. L. Weekly D716a
59 So. 3d 256

Insurance — Garage keepers — Exclusions — Promissory estoppel — Where policies issued to insured for several years had no exclusion of coverage for vehicles with state-issued certificates of destruction, but endorsement was added which excluded coverage for vehicles with state-issued certificates of destruction before insured renewed policy over the phone, insurer was promissorily estopped from enforcing the exclusion because insurer failed to inform insured that renewal policy would include the exclusionary endorsement — Silence, under circumstances in which there is a duty to speak, may constitute a misrepresentation, and insurer’s failure to inform insured that the renewal policy would include the exclusionary endorsement constituted a misrepresentation of a material fact upon which insured reasonably relied to insured’s detriment

36 Fla. L. Weekly D368a
56 So. 3d 55

Insurance — Discovery — Surveillance video — Trial court violated clearly established principle of law by granting motion to compel production of a surveillance video prior to granting the opportunity to depose the subjects of the video

36 Fla. L. Weekly D1230a
66 So. 3d 315

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in requiring insurer to produce results of the last twenty medical examinations of personal injury plaintiffs performed by insurer’s medical expert who had examined insured without notice to the patients as required by statute — It was a departure from essential requirements of law to order disclosure of the results of the medical examinations without notice even though the patients’ identities were ordered to be redacted

36 Fla. L. Weekly D707a
57 So. 3d 982

Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in compelling production of insurer’s claims notes, activity logs, property loss information, and property loss notice forms in insured’s breach of contract action against insurer — Insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks relief for breach of contract, and a trial court departs from the essential requirements of law in compelling disclosure of the contents of an insurer’s claim file when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved

36 Fla. L. Weekly D142b
54 So. 3d 543

Declaratory judgment — Jurisdiction — Circuit court had no jurisdiction of PIP insurer’s action seeking declaration of whether statute requires medical providers to mediate a PIP claim prior to filing a breach of contract action for benefits where declaratory action was based on a PIP claim of less than the jurisdictional amount of $15,000 — Unlike other matters in equity, there is no concurrent circuit and county court jurisdiction for claims for declaratory relief — Circuit court has jurisdiction of a declaratory action only if the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000, and only county court has jurisdiction of any amount in controversy less that $15,000

36 Fla. L. Weekly D2751a
77 So. 3d 772
Insurance — Credit life — Denial of application — No error in granting summary judgment to insurer finding that insurance application was not ambiguous and that there was no insurance contract between insurer and applicant where the language of the application made it unambiguously clear that it was not a contract, and disclosure signed by applicants clearly stated there would be no coverage until the application was approved, which it was not

36 Fla. L. Weekly D453a
55 So. 3d 690

Insurance — Counsel — Disqualification — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in disqualifying counsel from representing insurance company in company’s action against defendant asserting claims related to payment made to defendant for damages sustained by defendant’s vessel on ground that counsel had represented another insurance company in an action brought by defendant for damages sustained by the same vessel

36 Fla. L. Weekly S311a
67 So. 3d 187

Insurance — Commercial residential — Appraisal — Statutory amendment which provides that a commercial residential insurer may not exercise its right of appraisal if the insurer does not give notice of the availability of mediation does not apply retroactively — In determining that the amendment applied retroactively, the district court erroneously determined the retroactivity issue on the basis of whether retroactive application would unconstitutionally impair the obligations of contract, without first considering whether there was legislative intent that the amendment apply retroactively — Because amendment was substantive, and there was no clear evidence of legislative intent to apply it retroactively, amendment does not apply retroactively