2017

42 Fla. L. Weekly D464c
212 So. 3d 477

Insurance — Joinder of insurer in judgment against insured — Judgment creditor’s motion to join judgment debtor’s commercial general liability insurer as party to judgment was untimely where motion was not filed at time of final judgment or within the following fifteen days allowed for a motion for rehearing — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by joining insurer to judgment that was already rendered — Insurer was irreparably harmed because it was made responsible for coverage without having been given opportunity to raise defenses to entitlement to or amount of coverage — Court’s holding is without prejudice to filing separate action against insurer seeking declaratory judgment for determination as to coverage

42 Fla. L. Weekly D1085b
218 So. 3d 989

Insurance — Subrogation — Limitation of actions — In subrogation action by insurer against defendant alleging that defendant negligently repaired insured’s roof, resulting in water damage, limitations period commenced at time of the water damage, rather than at the time of the negligent repair — Subrogation action filed within 4 years of date water damage occurred was timely — Trial court erred in dismissing action as barred by statute of limitations

42 Fla. L. Weekly D1786a
224 So. 3d 864

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole loss — Trial court erred in entering directed verdict against insurer awarding homeowners damages for subsurface remediation in sinkhole action after refusing to consider testimony of insurer’s expert engineers and neutral evaluator regarding proper method of subsurface repair — Proper method of repair was jury question given conflicting evidence on this issue

42 Fla. L. Weekly D1931a
228 So. 3d 602

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claim — Where trial court entered judgment for insured in breach of contract action against insurer after mitigating amount of verdict to policy limits, court did not err by staying execution on judgment until insured provides insurer with a signed contract for completion of necessary subsurface repairs to home although repairs cannot be made for the policy limit amount — In light of counsel’s representations during oral argument, insurer has waived its option to tender policy limits in lieu of paying in excess of those limits to complete repairs — Remand with instructions to enter corrected order reflecting that, when insured provides insurer with a signed contract to complete necessary repairs, insurer will pay that amount instead of tendering policy limits

42 Fla. L. Weekly D1842a
228 So. 3d 596

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claims — Insurer waived compliance with conditions precedent to suit when it unequivocally denied coverage — An insurer that investigates a claim of loss and denies coverage because it concludes that a covered loss has not incurred cannot assert an insured’s failure to comply with policy’s conditions precedent to filing suit as basis for summary judgment — Insureds’ submission of engineer’s report that reached conclusion that sinkhole activity caused damage to their home and their request that insurer reconsider claim did not constitute a reopening of the claim that nullified insurer’s previous denial of coverage — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer on ground that insureds were barred from bringing breach of contract action

42 Fla. L. Weekly D339a
218 So. 3d 886

Insurance — Homeowners — In insured’s action against insurer to recover for damage to roof, trial court did not err in denying insurer’s motions for summary judgment and directed verdict alleging that insured failed to comply with post-loss obligations by submitting timely sworn proof of loss and protecting property from further damage by making reasonable and necessary repairs — Issue of whether insured substantially complied with post-loss obligations involved questions of fact properly resolved by jury — New trial required because of the admission of irrelevant evidence regarding insured’s health

42 Fla. L. Weekly D230a
208 So. 3d 835

Insurance — Homeowners — Appeals — Certiorari — Insured is not entitled to writ of certiorari seeking to quash trial court order abating insured’s declaratory judgment action against insurer and enforcing the option to repair provision contained in the policy where insured has not shown that trial court order creates irreparable harm — Because insurer agrees that insured is not precluded from maintaining her suit after insurer completes its repairs to property, trial court order does not result in irreparable harm

42 Fla. L. Weekly D469a
211 So. 3d 1126

Insurance — Homeowners — Appeals — Certiorari — Insureds are not entitled to certiorari review of trial court’s order abating their declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims against insurer until insurer has had an opportunity to repair water damage to insured home under option to repair provision of policy — Because insurer has acknowledged that insureds may properly seek to lift abatement order and maintain suit after repairs have been completed, insureds have failed to show irreparable injury resulting from trial court order

42 Fla. L. Weekly D1891c
225 So. 3d 974

Insurance — Homeowners — Replacement cost policy — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment for insurer in insureds’ breach of contract action against insurer on basis that insurer complied with its initial payment obligation by paying its independent adjuster’s estimate — There is factual issue as to whether insurer paid at least the actual cash value of the costs of repairs in compliance with the policy and statute — Trial court also erred in entering summary judgment on basis that insureds failed to comply with post-loss obligation of allowing inspection of property before filing suit where there was factual issue as to whether insurer requested plumbing inspection before suit was filed

42 Fla. L. Weekly D2029a
227 So. 3d 724

Insurance — Homeowners — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment for insurer on insured’s breach of contract action claiming that insurer’s payments for water damage to home were less than the actual cash value of the damage where widely divergent estimates of covered repair costs created a genuine issue of material fact — Although insurer argued that it did not breach policy because it paid the amount its own adjuster computed to be due on the claim, less the deductible, and allowed for “supplemental” claim submission, insureds’ claim and the adjusted loss amount prepared by the insureds’ independent adjuster was not a supplemental claim or one for damages discovered in the covered reconstruction and repair, but instead addressed original casualty event and the amounts contended to be necessary to repair and restore the direct physical loss to the covered property