2014

39 Fla. L. Weekly D279a
132 So. 3d 864

Insurance — Duty to defend and indemnify — Declaratory judgment — Stay — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by staying declaratory judgment action in which insurer sought to resolve its duty to defend and indemnify its insureds pending resolution of underlying arbitration action and liability action between insureds and third party — Order caused irreparable harm to insurer by forcing it to defend insureds without resolution of coverage dispute

39 Fla. L. Weekly D91a
129 So. 3d 1086

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Discovery action by PIP insurer against provider of MRI services to insured — Provider of services is not entitled to writ of prohibition to quash circuit court’s discovery order — Prohibition may not be used to revoke an order already entered — Circuit court had jurisdiction over discovery action although circuit court’s monetary jurisdictional threshold was not satisfied — Action for discovery was an equitable action that fell within circuit court’s jurisdiction — Provider of services is not entitled to writ of certiorari to quash circuit court discovery order where petition for certiorari relief asserts neither a material injury nor an irreparable harm

39 Fla. L. Weekly D1401e
161 So. 3d 493

Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Claim file — Work product privilege — Trial court erred by concluding that insurer’s claim file lost the qualified work product privilege when claim was closed with no litigation having materialized — Where insurer paid initial sinkhole claim, including an amount for compaction grouting to address sinkhole activity on property, but denied coverage for a subsequent claim on the ground that the damage was not covered under policy because the damage was caused by the improper remediation of the initial sinkhole by the insureds, it was a departure from the essential requirements of law for the trial court to order production of the claim file for the initial claim without an in camera inspection to determine whether there are any relevant documents that would meet the standard for production of otherwise privileged documents or information

39 Fla. L. Weekly D334b
136 So. 3d 711

Insurance — Bad faith — Discovery — Circuit court did not depart from essential requirements of law by failing to conduct in-camera review to address insurer’s objections to discovery requests based on scope of discovery requested and on attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine — General denial of insurer’s motion for protective order was equivalent to a determination that all of the documents were “otherwise discoverable,” and at that point, insurer’s claims of privilege and protection under work product doctrine became mature — Insurer now has ability to file privilege log pointing to specific documents which it claims are privileged

39 Fla. L. Weekly D801a
136 So. 3d 1235

Insurance — Disability — Where insured filed action against insurer alleging counts for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and reformation after insurer denied insured’s claim under disability insurance policy, and complaint also alleged count for negligent misrepresentation against insurance agent, it was a departure from essential requirements of law for trial court to deny motion to dismiss or stay/abate claim for negligent misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation claim is premature where there has been no determination of coverage under policy — Proper remedy is dismissal of negligent misrepresentation claim without prejudice

39 Fla. L. Weekly D442b
138 So. 3d 474

Insurance — Disability — Collateral estoppel — Policy providing that insured was entitled to receive lifetime benefits if he became totally disabled prior to his sixtieth birthday but would be entitled to benefits only until age sixty-five if he became totally disabled on or after his sixtieth birthday — Where jury found, by special interrogatory verdict in trial to determine whether insured was totally disabled, that onset of insured’s total disability occurred after his sixtieth birthday, insured was collaterally estopped from relitigating the onset date of his total disability in subsequent action against insurer for breach of contract after insurer ceased paying benefits at insured’s sixty-fifth birthday

39 Fla. L. Weekly D838a

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1760a

Insurance — Property — Condominium and contents — Coverage — Conditions precedent — Sworn proof of loss — Where insured failed to submit sworn proof of loss, insurer did not owe payment under policy’s terms unless insured rebutted presumption that failure to submit sworn proof of loss prejudiced insurer — Because owner failed to rebut presumption, trial court properly entered judgment in insurer’s favor — Trial court correctly found that insurer did not waive sworn proof of loss requirement by tendering payment — Personal property — Where policy provided personal property coverage for named perils, which included an “explosion,” and that term was not defined under policy, trial court correctly gave the term its plain and unambiguous meaning — Insured had burden of proving her contention that “explosion” included explosive expansion of a decomposing body, which was the circumstance that caused her loss — Trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of insurer

39 Fla. L. Weekly D559b
151 So. 3d 1

Insurance — Insured’s breach of policy provisions — Prejudice to insurer

39 Fla. L. Weekly D1760a
144 So. 3d 690

Insurance — Property — Condominium and contents — Coverage — Conditions precedent — Sworn proof of loss — Insurer was not obligated to pay where insured failed to file sworn proof of loss, thereby materially breaching condition precedent — Insurer need not show prejudice when insured breaches condition precedent to suit — Trial court correctly found that insurer did not waive sworn proof of loss requirement by tendering payment — Personal property — Where policy provided personal property coverage for named perils, which included an “explosion,” and that term was not defined under policy, trial court correctly gave the term its plain and unambiguous meaning — Insured had burden of proving her contention that “explosion” included explosive expansion of a decomposing body, which was the circumstance that caused her loss — Trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of insurer

39 Fla. L. Weekly D61b
133 So. 3d 1007

Insurance — Commercial vehicle — Coverage — Trial court properly entered summary judgment finding no coverage for bodily injury claims arising out of accident pursuant to named driver exclusion provision of policy where commercial vehicle was being driven by a person who had not been added as a driver after the policy was obtained — Trial court erred in finding no personal injury protection or property damage coverage, because those coverages are statutorily mandated