2016

41 Fla. L. Weekly S582a
208 So. 3d 694

Insurance — Homeowners — All risk policy — Coverage — Loss caused by multiple perils — Where loss is caused by multiple perils and at least one of the perils is excluded from coverage, the proper theory of recovery is the concurring cause doctrine — Under the concurrent cause doctrine, coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause — Insureds were entitled to coverage for loss caused by defective construction, which was an excluded peril, and rainwater and hurricane winds, which were covered perils — Trial court may properly consider settlements received from third parties as a post-judgment offset to judgment against insurer

41 Fla. L. Weekly D553a
193 So. 3d 16

Insurance — Health — Action against health insurer by assignee of physician who provided services to insured under policy, seeking payment for services rendered by physician — Trial court properly dismissed complaint where health plan clearly provides that insurer will not reimburse third parties that have been assigned benefits by a provider — Further, plaintiff’s state-law claims, which relate to a health plan governed by ERISA, are defensively preempted by ERISA

41 Fla. L. Weekly D2372a
202 So. 3d 148

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Jurisdiction — Foreign insurer — Action to recover uninsured motorist benefits by Florida resident who was injured in an automobile accident in Florida while driving an insured vehicle with permission of an insured against a Pennsylvania insurer which issued policy in Wisconsin that provided uninsured motorist coverage for accidents occurring anywhere in the United States and Canada — Because insurer’s refusal to pay first-party benefits to plaintiff would be a breach of contract in Florida, insurer is subject to jurisdiction in Florida under Florida’s long-arm statute — Insurer is entitled to dismissal of action, however, because insurer did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy constitutional due process — Insurer did not act to purposely avail itself of conducting any business in Florida — Mere provision of coverage for accidents nationwide is not enough to establish jurisdiction over nonresident insurer

41 Fla. L. Weekly S473a
202 So. 3d 396

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claim — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association liability — The statutory definition of “covered claim” effective on the date of an insurer’s adjudication of insolvency determines the scope of FIGA’s liability to insureds for sinkhole loss — Statutory provision limiting FIGA’s monetary obligation to the amount of actual repairs for a sinkhole loss precludes an insured from obtaining an appraisal award determining the amount of loss in accordance with the terms of the homeowners policy

41 Fla. L. Weekly D927a
193 So. 3d 940

Insurance — Homeowners — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Trial court properly entered order that substituted FIGA for insolvent insurer in first-party lawsuit that was pending at time insurer was declared insolvent — There is no merit to FIGA’s contention that trial court had no jurisdiction over FIGA because insured’s attempt to name FIGA as the defendant in the lawsuit occurred after the statute of limitations governing claims against FIGA had expired — It is not necessary for the plaintiff in a first-party lawsuit to bring a new action against FIGA, or separately serve FIGA in the pending action, in order for the trial court to obtain jurisdiction over FIGA

41 Fla. L. Weekly D916b
189 So. 3d 293

Insurance — General liability — Duty to defend and indemnify — Damages arising from automated solicitation calls placed by insured to plaintiffs in underlying litigation — Trial court did not err in finding that calls placed by insured constituted an “occurrence” under the policy where, although calls were intentionally placed, evidence demonstrated that insured was not aware that it was acting in violation of law or that it had intent to injure — Exclusions — “Expected or intended injury” exclusion did not apply, although calls were placed intentionally, where there was no evidence that insured expected or intended to cause harm by placing phone calls

41 Fla. L. Weekly D387b
187 So. 3d 258

Insurance — General liability — Coverage — Injury to insured’s employee who was attending an event at an attraction owned by county which was hosted by the insured employer — Trial court properly found that the county and the county-owned attraction were additional insureds under the policy — Trial court erred in finding that coverage was excluded under the absolute employer’s liability provision of the policy — Although there would have been no coverage for a claim brought against the insured by its own employee, there was coverage for claims against the additional insureds under the severability or separation of insureds provision — Separation of insureds provision operated to permit coverage for plaintiff’s claim against additional insureds, even if she was at the attraction because of her employment with the insured employer — Error to enter summary judgment for defendant insurer on claims of breach of contract and bad faith

41 Fla. L. Weekly D2413a
208 So. 3d 184

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Venue — Forum selection clause — Trial court erred in denying defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss claim for uninsured motorist benefits based on improper venue where endorsement to policy contained mandatory forum selection clause providing that any lawsuits related to coverage shall be brought, heard, and decided in county of insured address shown on policy declarations, which was an address in Pennsylvania — Forum selection clause contained in endorsement prevailed over general venue provisions in policy — To the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the body of the policy, the endorsement controls

41 Fla. L. Weekly D1389b

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claim — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in requiring insureds to disclose to defendant/prior insurer financial information from a confidential settlement agreement insureds had reached with subsequent homeowners insurer where defendant insurer’s liability has not yet been established

41 Fla. L. Weekly D352b
189 So. 3d 196

Insurance — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in ordering disclosure of insurer’s claims file and related materials prior to any coverage determination