2015

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2550b
179 So. 3d 425

Insurance — Conditions precedent/subsequent to coverage — Examination under oath

40 Fla. L. Weekly D988b
166 So. 3d 847

Insurance — Employee dishonesty — Trial court erred in finding that managing partner was entitled to share of proceeds partnership received from an employee dishonesty policy pursuant to a settlement agreement entered in bankruptcy court which provided for managing partner’s IRA to share in any restitution payments made to the partnership — Proceeds from employee dishonesty policy did not constitute a “restitution payment” — Plaintiff not entitled to portion of proceeds of policy, which were paid into partnership’s profit-sharing trust, under alternative theory based on plaintiff’s status as trust beneficiary where that theory of recovery was first raised by counsel during opening argument

40 Fla. L. Weekly D209a
154 So. 3d 1193

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claim — Breach of contract action by insureds against insurer for failure to pay claim for sinkhole loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment for insurer on ground that no payment was due under “loss payment” provision of policy, and that insureds cannot maintain breach of contract suit until time for payment under loss payment provision has come and gone without payment — Loss payment provision of policy did not render suit premature — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment for insurer on ground that by filing suit just after insurer initiated neutral evaluation, insureds violated stay imposed by neutral evaluation statute and breached “suit against us” provision of policy — Filing of suit did not violate stay provision of statute — Trial court properly denied insurer’s motion for summary judgment which alleged that insureds failed to comply with duty after loss provision of policy by failing to cooperate with contractor retained by insurer to estimate cosmetic damage to home where there was no showing that insurer was prejudiced by insureds’ lack of cooperation, and insureds partially complied with provision by cooperating with investigation by insurer’s engineer on more significant aspect of damages

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2467a
178 So. 3d 511

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Reasonableness of charges — Trial court did not err in denying insurer’s amended petition to discovery requests under section 627.736(6)(b) about reasonableness of charges, including discovery regarding amount others paid to provider for the same services and treatments — Discovery under section 627.736(6)(b) is limited to facts of treatment and to related billing of injured person — Section 627.736(5), which mandates that medical providers may charge only a reasonable amount for services rendered, is inapplicable to discovery sought under section 627.736(6)(b)

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2101a
174 So. 3d 606

Torts — Civil procedure — Discovery — Expert witness — Financial and business records — Inconsistencies between deposition responses of defense expert witness and interrogatory answers provided by defense counsel with respect to percentage of income the expert derived from working as an expert witness and the number of times expert had testified for plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury litigation did not constitute “unusual or compelling circumstances” to warrant the extensive financial discovery permitted by trial court — Discovery exceeded that allowed by rule

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1447a
213 So. 3d 372

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Trial court abused discretion in ordering health care provider to produce confidential contracts between health care providers and health insurance entities which PIP insurer sought because they contain information regarding negotiated reimbursement rates that health care provider agreed to accept for services rendered on behalf of each entity’s insureds — Order exceeds scope of discovery provided by statute — Trial court also abused discretion by ordering health care provider to make a designated corporate representative available for deposition — Conflict certified

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1014b
163 So. 3d 704

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Discovery — Financial information — Non-party medical expert retained by insurer to conduct compulsory medical examination — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by allowing discovery of financial information that exceeded scope of discovery permitted by procedural rule without finding unusual or compelling circumstances — Discussion of parameters of discovery directed to a non-party expert retained by litigant

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2064d
172 So. 3d 1013

Insurance — Discovery — Claim file — Order overruling objections based upon claims of work product and attorney-client privilege quashed

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2562a
179 So. 3d 437

Insurance — Civil procedure — Amended default final judgment — Insurer which was not party to cross-claim against its insured had standing to move to vacate amended default judgment against insured which was entered 18 months after court entered default final judgment where amended judgment added substantive findings to the initial judgment, including findings outside the allegations contained in the cross-claim that should have required the introduction of evidence, and the amended judgment would adversely affect insurer’s rights — Trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend judgment to include substantive changes

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2547b
178 So. 3d 947

Insurance — Homeowners — Insured’s action against insurer alleging insurer breached contract by failing to pay for covered loss and also seeking declaratory judgment as to whether insurer properly exercised its option to repair, whether the insured was required to allow the insurer’s contractor to repair his home without agreeing to proposed repairs, and whether insurer was entitled to deny coverage when insured disputed scope of proposed repairs — Abatement of action — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law when it abated action pending insured’s compliance with insurer’s right to exercise its option to repair the insured’s damages, an action which effectively amounted to dismissal of insured’s complaint