2018

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2302a
259 So. 3d 179

Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage to home — Insurer’s election to repair — Injunction — Trial court did not err in denying insurer’s motion for temporary injunction compelling insureds to execute a work authorization and submit to an appraisal of water damage claim where insurer failed to establish the existence of irreparable harm and lack of adequate remedy at law

43 Fla. L. Weekly D671a
241 So. 3d 254

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment for insurer, finding that water damage within property allegedly due to a roof leak was not covered because damages were caused by age and wear and tear of roof — Summary judgment was improper where conflicting reports of parties’ experts established that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the cause of the loss

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2427b
257 So. 3d 1171

Insurance — Homeowners — Summary judgment — Trial court improperly granted final summary judgment to insurer where disputed issues of material fact remain as to whether a covered peril caused an opening in the roof of insured’s home, allowing rain water to enter and damage the home’s interior

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a
260 So. 3d 396

Insurance — Homeowners — Property damage — Discovery — Trial court abused discretion by allowing insureds’ expert to give testimony regarding the cause of damage to insureds’ property which differed from his pre-trial deposition, based on expert’s post-discovery, mid-trial inspection of insureds’ property — Change in expert’s testimony was a surprise to insurer and resulted in prejudice

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1116a
246 So. 3d 438

Insurance — Homeowners — Water intrusion into home caused by septic tank backup — Trial court did not err in entering final summary judgment for insurer based on conclusion that insureds failed to overcome presumption that their failure to timely report claim had prejudiced insurer’s investigation — Although there may have been disputed issues of fact as to whether insurer was prejudiced in determining cause of loss, facts, even as presented by insured’s adjuster and engineer, showed that insurer would be prejudiced by passage of time in investigating extent of loss, and thus, the cost of repair

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2560b
260 So. 3d 371
Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claim — All-risk policy with sinkhole loss coverage endorsement — Causation of loss — Jury instructions — Concurrent-cause doctrine, not efficient-proximate-cause doctrine, is appropriate theory of recovery to apply when two or more perils converge to cause loss and at least one of the perils is excluded from the policy — Where evidence was presented that loss was caused by sinkhole activity, a covered peril, and ongoing decay of soils beneath the home, an excluded peril, trial court properly instructed jury on the concurrent-cause doctrine, requiring it to determine if at least one of the concurrent causes was covered under policy — However, instructions which improperly informed jury that insureds had burden to prove that their property experienced damages from a sinkhole, correctly advised that court had determined that insureds had met their burden of proving that damage occurred to insured home during policy period and that insurer had burden to prove that all damage is non-sinkhole related were confusing and may have misled jury, causing it to conclude that insureds had proved that their property was damaged by a sinkhole, a burden they did not have, and making it impossible for insurer to meet its burden of proving that no loss was sinkhole related

43 Fla. L. Weekly D164a
235 So. 3d 936

Insurance — Homeowners — All risk policy — Jury instructions — Cause of damage to roof of insured home — Efficient proximate cause/concurrent cause — Where insureds presented evidence that damage to roof was caused by hailstorm, but insurer presented evidence that wear and tear was the principal cause of damage, trial court erred in instructing jury that insureds were required to prove that hailstorm was the most substantial or responsible cause of damage — It was error for court to apply efficient proximate cause doctrine in jury instructions without jury first determining whether an efficient proximate cause could be determined — Where some of the policy exclusions did not contain anti-concurrent cause provisions, court erred by uniformly applying efficient proximate cause doctrine in jury instructions — Because policy was all risk policy, court improperly allocated burden of proof by placing initial burden of proof on insureds to demonstrate that hailstorm was the most substantial or responsible cause of damage

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1159a
248 So. 3d 135

Jurisdiction — Non-residents — Minimum contacts — Foreign health insurer — Trial court erred in finding specific personal jurisdiction over defendant Maryland health insurer where defendant lacked minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy due process — Proper test for determining existence of minimum contacts is whether defendant purposefully availed itself of benefits of Florida law, and not whether defendant could foresee being hauled into court in Florida — Where defendant’s contact with plaintiff which provided treatment to defendant’s insureds was based on plaintiff’s customers’ unilateral decisions to seek treatment in Florida, there were insufficient minimum contacts to establish specific jurisdiction over defendant

43 Fla. L. Weekly D161b
235 So. 3d 1041

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Coverage — Trial court did not err in finding that insured was entitled to UM coverage for injuries sustained when she was struck by an underinsured golf cart while walking on paved pathway, despite UM exclusion for vehicles designed “mainly for use off public roads while not on public roads,” where policy provided liability coverage for certain damages caused by insured’s use of non-owned golf cart — Public policy requires UM coverage to be reciprocal to liability coverage

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2710a
260 So. 3d 1123

Insurance — Uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits — Family member of insured struck by uninsured/underinsured motorist while operating motorcycle not covered by the policy — Exclusion provision stating that insurer does not provide UM coverage for insured while occupying “any motor vehicle owned” by the insured which is not covered under the policy — Exclusion clause in policy is ambiguous as to whether it applies to motorcycles where the policy defines “owned” as having legal title to an “auto,” which is defined as a four-wheel automobile — Application of policy definitions could reasonably be construed to narrow undefined term “motor vehicle” to certain specified four-wheel vehicles rendering exclusion inapplicable to motorcycles