2017

42 Fla. L. Weekly D203a
211 So. 3d 1067

Insurance — Homeowners — Ensuing loss provision — Trial court erred by entering summary judgment against insurer for cost of a repair and replacement of slab necessary to reach a broken pipe, because the insurance contract’s ensuing loss provision provided coverage for such repairs where water damage had occurred, and as the slab had not yet been opened at the time of summary judgment, it was unknown whether water damage had occurred — No prejudice to homeowners’ filing another claim of loss at a later date

42 Fla. L. Weekly D2174b
230 So. 3d 1242

Insurance — Homeowners — Error to enter summary judgment for insurer in insureds’ breach of contract action where there is factual issue as to whether insurer paid actual cash value of loss — Statute requires payment of actual case value, not merely insurer’s estimate of actual cash value

42 Fla. L. Weekly D2117b
226 So. 3d 1085

Insurance — Error to enter summary judgment for insurer where there is genuine issue of material fact as to amount of actual cash value of insured loss

42 Fla. L. Weekly D2115a
226 So. 3d 1084

Insurance — Error to enter summary judgment for insurer where there is genuine issue of material fact as to amount of actual cash value of insured loss

42 Fla. L. Weekly D2006a
225 So. 3d 1012

Insurance — Health insurance — Coverage — Dependent children — Where language of Specified Health Event Insurance Policy provided coverage for insured’s “natural children who are unmarried, who are under age 25, and who qualify as legal dependents for tax exemption purposes under the United States Internal Revenue Tax Code,” it was error to find that no coverage was provided for insured’s 23-year-old daughter who was unmarried, and financially dependent upon and living with her parents, although she was not a dependent for tax exemption purposes — Specific age limit stated in policy prevails over more restrictive age limit in generally referenced tax code — Further, any ambiguity in policy definition of “dependent children” must be resolved against insurer

42 Fla. L. Weekly D365a
209 So. 3d 682

Insurance — Homeowners — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Limitation of actions — Insured who has filed first-party action to recover policy benefits against insurer prior to it becoming insolvent is not required to file suit against FIGA within limitations period in order to recover under FIGA Act — Trial court erred in applying limitations period to insured’s suit against FIGA and dismissing suit — Insured’s motions to amend complaint and substitute parties should have been granted, and her suit should have been allowed to proceed against FIGA

42 Fla. L. Weekly D2283a
231 So. 3d 1

Civil procedure — Venue — Transfer — Multiple foreign corporation defendants — Where plaintiff brought action against two uninsured-motorist insurers in county where neither plaintiff nor uninsured motorist reside and in which car accident did not occur, trial court erred in granting motion to transfer venue based on Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060 filed by one of the defendants where the non-moving insurer had an office in the county of the trial and answered the complaint — Trial court’s order denying separate motion to transfer for forum non conveniens as moot, given the order granting the transfer motion on civil procedure grounds, is reversed because the motion is no longer moot

42 Fla. L. Weekly D405a
210 So. 3d 260

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 42 Fla. L. Weekly D505b

Insurance — Homeowners — Insolvent insurers — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Insured who has already instituted an action against his or her homeowner’s insurance carrier prior to carrier being declared insolvent is not statutorily required to file a new action against FIGA or separately serve FIGA in the pending action — Trial court erred in granting FIGA’s motion to dismiss based on its interpretation of section 631.68 as requiring that when FIGA assumes the defense of a covered claim, an insured who has already filed a timely lawsuit against its homeowner’s insurance carrier must file a new lawsuit against FIGA within section 631.68’s one-year filing period or be forever barred

42 Fla. L. Weekly D1096b
218 So. 3d 999

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claim — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association liability — Final judgment to be corrected to reflect that insured is required to enter into repair contracts within jury verdict amounts and that FIGA is required to pay actual repair costs to contractors up to the combined statutory cap

42 Fla. L. Weekly D1565a
224 So. 3d 259

Insurance — Homeowners — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment for insurer on insured’s breach of contract action claiming that insurer’s payments for rainwater damage to home’s interior caused by roof leaks 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 — Exclusions — Trial court also erred in entering summary judgment for insurer on insured’s claim for damages to the roof itself on the ground that the roof damage was excluded by the “wear and tear” exclusion in the policy where insured has not yet presented a proper claim to insurer for processing, so that questions regarding both coverage and extent of loss have not yet crystallized for assertion as a cause of action for breach