2015

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1404a
166 So. 3d 937

Declaratory judgments — Insurance — Limitation of actions — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant on ground that suit seeking declaratory judgment regarding insurance contract was time-barred under Texas statute of limitations, which was made applicable under choice of law provision in endorsement, where there was factual dispute as to whether endorsement was actually part of policy

40 Fla. L. Weekly D153b
154 So. 3d 509

Insurance — Declaratory judgment — Discovery depositions — Non-residents — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by denying plaintiff’s motion for protective order and requiring non-party who resided and worked in Pennsylvania to be deposed in Broward County — Defendant failed to demonstrate that individual was an officer, director, or managing agent of corporate plaintiff such that non-resident could be deposed in Broward County where plaintiff instituted its action for declaratory judgment

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1887a
171 So. 3d 230

Insurance — Homeowners — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by staying insurer’s declaratory action on coverage pending resolution of underlying tort action against insured — The two actions are mutually exclusive — A determination of whether insurer has a duty to defend insured and indemnify her will likely promote settlement of tort claims against insured — Decision on coverage will avoid potential for collusion between insured and plaintiff in tort case to create coverage where none exists

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2725a
180 So. 3d 1165

Insurance — Condominiums — Coverage — Hurricane loss — Additional living expenses — Actions alleging insurer breached policy by providing additional living expenses coverage under hurricane coverage endorsement rather than under general policy provisions because insureds’ loss of use was caused by tornado that developed during hurricane, not by hurricane itself — Trial courts erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insureds and in finding policy’s definition of hurricane did not include tornadoes spawned during a named hurricane storm system where plain, unambiguous language of policy defined hurricane as a “storm system that has been declared to be a hurricane by the National Hurricane Center of the National Weather Service”

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1371c
169 So. 3d 174

Insurance — Commercial general liability — Exclusions — Bodily injury or property damage insured was obligated to pay by reason of assumption of liability in contract or agreement — Exceptions to exclusion — Insured contract — After crane lessor settled with party injured on construction site, moved for summary judgment against crane lessee based on indemnity clause in crane rental agreement, and then entered into Coblentz agreement with crane lessee in which crane lessee assigned to lessor its claims against lessee’s insurer, trial court improperly granted crane lessor’s motion for partial summary judgment in lessor’s third party action against lessee’s insurer, ruling insurer had duty to defend claim — Because crane lessor’s third party complaint against lessee’s insurer did not demonstrate that injury was caused either by lessee or those working on lessee’s “behalf,” the rental agreement was not brought within the definition of an “insured contract,” and hence was not an exception to the exclusion from coverage — Insurer had no duty of indemnification — Remand for entry of final judgment in favor of insurer

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1359a
173 So. 3d 1004

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Class actions — Denial of certification — Provider’s challenge to insurer’s practice of conditioning payment of PIP claims on the submission of separate disclosure and acknowledgment form every time insured patient received health care services — Trial court did not err in ruling that plaintiff could not proceed on a class action basis for claims adjudicated in a prior class action on behalf of providers who opted out of that prior class action settlement — Trial court did not bar plaintiff from seeking class certification of claims arising after the prior class action or from pursuing plaintiff’s monetary claims against insurer individually — Declaratory judgment — Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review nonfinal order dismissing declaratory judgment claims — Injunctive relief — Trial court did not err in finding that count seeking injunctive relief could not proceed as class action based on its characterization of claim as predominantly one for monetary relief or in concluding that plaintiff failed to state cause of action for injunctive relief

40 Fla. L. Weekly D191a
155 So. 3d 432

Insurance — Commercial property — Excess insurance — Hurricane damage — Code upgrade damages — When primary policy is read as a whole, giving every provision its full meaning and operative effect, policy unambiguously provides blanket limit of $2,500,000 per occurrence with no sublimit for business income damages — Trial court did not err in interpreting primary policy as a blanket policy rather than a scheduled policy — Evidence — Hearsay — Exceptions — Business records — Trial court erred in admitting, as a business record, insured’s exhibit which consisted of hurricane damage/code upgrade insurance claim which insured submitted to primary and excess insurers in support of its claim for code upgrade damages resulting from hurricanes — Insured failed to show that all records in the exhibit were made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge — Error was not harmless where jury was allowed to consider the exhibit in determining amount of code upgrade damages — Remand for new trial as to these damages only — Where insured filed separate actions for each of two hurricanes, separate judgment should be entered for each action even though actions were consolidated for purposes of trial

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1218a
163 So. 3d 1266

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Collateral estoppel — Where wife who was a named insured under policy obtained a favorable judgment in her declaratory action against insurer which claimed that insurer waived its right to cancel policy for non-payment of premium and that it was estopped to deny coverage, and husband who was also a named insured under policy then filed a declaratory action against insurer and obtained judgment on the basis of collateral estoppel, judgment for husband must be reversed because judgment for wife has been reversed on appeal — There is no longer a final decision regarding any issue in wife’s case because her final judgment has been reversed and case remanded for new trial, so that the foundation for husband’s judgment has been eliminated

40 Fla. L. Weekly D802b
160 So. 3d 549

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Cancellation of policy for non-payment of premium — Declaratory action alleging that insurer waived its right to deny coverage and was estopped from denying coverage due to cancellation of policy for insured’s non-payment of premium — Evidence — Trial court erred in allowing insured to introduce evidence regarding the long number of years insureds had been insured by insurer — Such evidence was not relevant and appealed to sympathy of jurors — Because of erroneous admission of evidence, insurer was denied a fair trial — Remand for new trial

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1716a
172 So. 3d 888

Insurance — Business owners’s policy — Breach by insured of policy condition requiring insured to maintain burglary alarm system monitored by a security company and to notify insurer if it became aware of any suspension or impairment of the system — In entering summary judgment finding that insured was entitled to recover for loss resulting from burglary even though insured had not maintained burglary alarm system monitored by security company because insurer was not prejudiced by the breach, trial court improperly focused solely on the fact that the burglary would not have been detected even if the alarm monitoring system had been maintained — Because insured breached condition subsequent of notifying insurer of any suspension or impairment of monitored alarm system, issue to be determined by court is whether insurer was prejudiced by the lack of an opportunity to decide whether it would cancel the policy, keep the policy in place with an increase in premium, or waive the obligation to maintain the alarm monitoring contract