2013

38 Fla. L. Weekly D75a
104 So. 3d 1242

Insurance — Homeowners — Proof of loss — In insureds’ breach of contract action against insurer, in which insurer claimed that insureds were not entitled to recover under policy because they failed to comply with condition precedent that they submit sworn proof of loss to insurer, trial court did not err in allowing insureds to prove that insurer was not prejudiced by their failure to substantially comply with proof of loss condition — Trial court properly denied insurer’s motion for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict after jury returned verdict for insureds, finding that insureds failed to substantially comply with duty to provide insurer with sworn proof of loss, but that insurer was not prejudiced by the noncompliance

38 Fla. L. Weekly D1846a
121 So. 3d 1125

Insurance — Homeowners — Notice of loss — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment for insurer in insured’s breach of contract action on ground that insurer was prejudiced by insured’s late notice of loss resulting from hurricane — Material question of fact existed regarding timeliness of notice of loss — Although insured stated in deposition that she gave timely notice to insurance company, but stated in affidavit in opposition to insurer’s motion for summary judgment that she gave timely notice to the agent who sold her the policy, insured’s affidavit did not necessarily contradict her deposition testimony because insured considered the insurance company and the insurance agent to be the same entity

38 Fla. L. Weekly D1946a
121 So. 3d 652

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 39 Fla. L. Weekly D162a

Homeowners insurance — Liability — Dog bite — Trial court erred in determining that only one “occurrence” under homeowner’s policy took place when dog bit child and, after releasing child from her mouth, bit mother, who had run into room in response to child’s screams

38 Fla. L. Weekly D1230a
114 So. 3d 457

Insurance — Homeowners — Hurricane damage — Notice of loss — Where homeowner failed to give timely notice of loss as required by policy, there was presumption that insurer had been prejudiced — Homeowner did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut presumption of prejudice resulting from delayed notice of loss — Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of insurer, although its reasoning, that nearly four-year delay was, alone, sufficient to bar the claim, was wrong

38 Fla. L. Weekly D597b
109 So. 3d 860

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkholes — Office of Insurance Regulation’s construction of statute requiring property insurers to provide coverage for catastrophic ground cover collapse in residential property policies and to offer optional coverage for sinkhole losses is not erroneous in holding that the section requires insurers to offer sinkhole loss coverage in an amount equal to the dwelling coverage limit — Office properly disapproved insurer’s amended endorsement limiting sinkhole loss coverage to 25 percent of overall coverage for insured dwelling — Defining the “form to which the coverage attaches” as the base policy rather than as policy endorsement setting out the limit of such coverage is within the permissible range of interpretations of statutory language

38 Fla. L. Weekly D2211a
124 So. 3d 976

Insurance — Homeowners — Hurricane damage — Coverage — General contractor overhead and profit expenses — Trial court erred in finding insurer could refuse to pay GC overhead as part of homeowners’ claims for hurricane damage to their homes until homeowners actually incurred the expenses — Because homeowners alleged entitlement to GC overhead that is “reasonably likely” to be incurred, case remanded for determination whether homeowners were reasonably likely to incur GC overhead as part of their damages

38 Fla. L. Weekly D1982a
141 So. 3d 195

Insurance — Homeowners — All risk policy — Coverage — Damage caused by multiple perils — In the case of a first-party insurance policy, where damage is caused by multiple perils, some of which are covered and some of which are excluded, the efficient proximate cause doctrine rather than the concurrent causation doctrine is applicable to determine whether coverage is provided — Where damage to insured home was caused by rain and wind, which were covered perils, and by defective construction, which was an excluded peril, issue of coverage should have been determined under efficient proximate cause doctrine, and finder of fact should have determined which peril was the most substantial or responsible factor in the loss

38 Fla. L. Weekly D301a
197 So. 3d 63

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 39 Fla. L. Weekly D298a

Insurance — Claim against insurance company for damage to insured home caused by burglary — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint for failure of plaintiff to file a petition in probate to determine her own capacity — Appellate attorney’s fees — Persistence of insurer and its counsel in arguing that insured was required to seek a guardian for herself as condition of continuing action was frivolous where insured had executed a durable power of attorney in favor of her son — Insurer and its counsel should be equally responsible for insured’s attorney’s fees in prosecuting appeal

38 Fla. L. Weekly D694a
114 So. 3d 257

Insurance — Homeowners — All risk policy — Exclusions — Water damage — Damage caused to residence when, due to age and deterioration, a pipe located on the residence premises collapsed, with result that debris entered the pipe, forming a blockage which ultimately caused waste water and material to back up through the blocked pipe and into the residence premises through drains — Exclusion for damage caused by water or water-borne material which backs up through sewers or drains is not applicable where the damage results from water or material backing up through blocked pipe within the plumbing system — Water damage exclusion relates to damage caused by water originating from somewhere other than the residence premises’ plumbing system — Because the claimed loss was caused by the deterioration of a pipe within the plumbing system, which caused water or water-borne material emanating from the residence premises’ plumbing system to back up into the residence premises, the loss is a covered loss

38 Fla. L. Weekly D2064a
121 So. 3d 1191

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Action against UM insurer by policyholder individually and as personal representative of estate of named insured seeking coverage for injuries sustained when underinsured motorist collided with two motorcycles owned and operated by policyholder and named insured — Where named insured originally purchased insurance policy at issue and at time of purchase rejected UM coverage equal to bodily injury liability limits, that rejection was binding on subsequent policyholder where the policy was renewed, extended, changed, superseded, or replaced by the subsequent policy without any change in policy limits — Stacking — The insured’s selection of unstacked coverage at time policy was acquired was binding on his estate and personal representative — However, UM stacking waiver did not apply to individual claims of subsequent policyholder who did not personally sign UM stacking waiver as an insured — Exclusions — Bodily injury to insured while occupying vehicle owned by insured but not insured under policy — Under circumstances, owned-but-not-insured exclusion selected at time original policy was acquired was binding on subsequent policyholder individually and as personal representative of original policyholder/named insured’s estate