2018

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2452a
276 So. 3d 337

Workers’ compensation — Known loss — Action involving employer’s broker acquiring workers’ compensation insurance starting the day of job site injury where broker knew of the injury beforehand but did not inform insurer — Although policy technically took effect prior to the occurrence of the injury where coverage began at 12:01 a.m. on the date of loss because the policy did not set a specific time at which coverage was to begin, an insurer is not required to cover an insured’s known and undisclosed losses — Finding that insurer is not liable applies specifically to the known and undisclosed injury without more broadly affecting or canceling employer’s workers’ compensation coverage for other losses

43 Fla. L. Weekly D962a
244 So. 3d 396

Administrative law — Insurance — Windstorm — Rates — Hearings — Section 627.351(6)(n)1, which requires Citizens Property Insurance Corporation to submit proposed rates at least annually to Office of Insurance Regulation, which in turn establishes Citizens’ rates by final order after consideration of the proposal, does not contemplate administrative review by Citizens’ policy holders of final rate orders — While section 627.371 provides point of entry for policyholders to seek a probable-cause determination as to legality of rates applied with respect to insurance afforded to them, the rates established by the final orders at issue had not yet been applied when petitioner sought review and, accordingly, petitioner was not entitled to formal administrative hearing to challenge either the rate orders or the probable-cause determination

43 Fla. L. Weekly D908a
243 So. 3d 996

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Stacking — Waiver — Failure to serve mandatory written notice required by statute in effect at time insurance contract was executed precluded insurance company from claiming that insured orally made a knowing choice regarding stacking of UM coverage

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1220a
246 So. 3d 560

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Jurors — Peremptory challenge — Trial court erred in denying defendant insurer’s peremptory challenge of African-American female juror on ground that race-neutral explanation for challenge, that juror was inattentive and did not appear engaged in jury selection process, was legally insufficient — Where trial court agreed with defendant’s observation that juror was not particularly engaged, defendant was entitled to presumption that proffered reason for challenge was genuine, and court was obligated to undertake a genuineness analysis prior to disallowing the strike, which court did not do — New trial required

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1171c
248 So. 3d 240

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Damages — Remittitur — Where insurer rejected remittitur for future medical expenses only, it was error to order new trial on all damages — Remand for new trial solely on future medical expenses

43 Fla. L. Weekly D238a
237 So. 3d 423

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Damages — Evidence of medical treatment insured might possibly need in the future was insufficient to sustain award of damages for future medical expenses — Award of damages for future medical expenses is limited to expenses reasonably certain to be incurred — Remand for trial court to either grant insurer’s motion for remittitur or conduct new trial limited to determination of future medical expenses

43 Fla. L. Weekly D100a
235 So. 3d 1017

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Coverage — Relatives — Competent substantial evidence supported trial court’s finding that daughter of insured was unmarried, unemancipated, and away at college at time of accident and therefore entitled to UM coverage under parents’ insurance policy

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2187a
260 So. 3d 342

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Rejection of UM coverage — Trial court properly denied insurer’s summary judgment motion which argued that insured’s automobile policy did not provide coverage to insured while riding his motorcycle because the motorcycle was not a scheduled vehicle under the automobile policy — Where an insured is injured while occupying an owned vehicle that is not listed on the policy, the insured is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage even if he would not have been entitled to liability coverage — Insurer’s claim that insured’s automobile policy does not provide UM coverage for the accident because of an exclusion contained within UM rejection form that was electronically signed when automobile policy was procured was waived — Trial court properly denied insurer’s summary judgment motion which argued that insurer was entitled to conclusive presumption that insured rejected UM coverage because insured’s daughter signed UM rejection form online on behalf of insured where rejection form, although approved by Department of Insurance Regulation, failed to track precise language of statute — Trial court erred by excluding probative, admissible evidence on issue of whether insured made a knowing, written rejection of UM coverage — Evidence that insured orally rejected UM coverage at time policy was procured is relevant to support insurer’s claim that insured’s daughter, on behalf of insured, electronically signed UM rejection form

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2233b
256 So. 3d 238

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Causation — Damages — In action by insured against UM insurer, trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment for insured on issues of causation and damages where there was evidence of preexisting conditions which directly related to the issue of causation — By granting summary judgment, court improperly removed issue of whether accident caused insured’s claimed injuries from jury’s consideration — Evidence — Although insured had withdrawn his claim for damages for lower back injuries, trial court abused discretion in preventing introduction of evidence of insured’s prior lower back injuries, as lower back injuries were interconnected with neck and mid-back injuries for which insured did claim damages

43 Fla. L. Weekly D555a
240 So. 3d 848

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Discovery — Trial court abused discretion by dismissing insured’s breach of contract action against insurer as a sanction for disobeying a court order prohibiting insured from undergoing surgery before a compulsory medical examination could be performed — Under circumstances, dismissal was too harsh a sanction