2018

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2267e
267 So. 3d 453

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Identical policies issued by same insurer to mother and daughter who lived in the same household, with mother’s policy providing UM coverage of $100,000 per person and daughter’s policy providing UM coverage of $25,000 per person — In action against insurer by daughter to recover for injuries she sustained in accident with uninsured motorist while driving her own vehicle, it was error for trial court to enter summary judgment finding that daughter was entitled to UM coverage equal to the higher limit provided by the mother’s policy — Daughter was not covered under UM provision of mother’s policy due to exclusion in mother’s policy which provided that “There is no coverage for an insured who sustains bodily injury while occupying a vehicle owned by any resident relative if it is not your car”

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1523a
250 So. 3d 716

Insurance — Homeowners — Exclusions — Constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water over a long period of time — Jury instructions — Trial court erroneously instructed jury about the duty to adjust claim, which transformed case into a referendum on the quality of the adjuster’s performance instead of focusing the jury on the factual issue of whether the loss fell under the policy exclusion — Trial court also erred in instructing jury on how to construe insurance contract, as construction of insurance policy is question of law for court

43 Fla. L. Weekly D446a
241 So. 3d 925

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1138a

Insurance — Homeowners — All risk policy — Exclusions — Exclusion for damage caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water over a period of 14 or more days did not exclude coverage for damage caused during the first 13 days that water leaked from water supply line to refrigerator

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2723a
261 So. 3d 684

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Phantom vehicle — Plaintiff did not improperly stack inferences to show that the negligence of the driver of a pickup truck from which a ladder fell onto the roadway on a bridge was the cause of accident resulting from the ladder being on the roadway — Inference that ladder fell on roadway from phantom vehicle was established to exclusion of all other reasonable inferences — Further inference that owner of vehicle was negligent in failing to properly secure ladder was reasonable and permissible — Trial court properly denied insurer’s motion for directed verdict which alleged that plaintiff improperly stacked inferences

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1713b
252 So. 3d 799

Insurance — General liability — Duty to defend and indemnify — Trial court did not err in denying insurer’s motion for summary judgment on its duty to defend insured pharmacy in underlying lawsuit in which a plaintiff asserted claims against pharmacy and its employees for negligent acts causing her injuries in connection with a miscarriage that was caused by plaintiff’s then-boyfriend duping her into taking an abortifacient drug plaintiff believed to be an antibiotic — Although insurer argued that claims fell within policy’s “professional services” exclusion, trial court correctly reasoned that the allegations in the underlying suit could potentially be deemed to be unrelated to professional services and bring tort action within coverage provided by policy — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer on its duty to indemnify pharmacy from any damages attributable to it in underlying lawsuit where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether pharmacy or its employees were ordinarily or professionally negligent

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2258b
255 So. 3d 508

Insurance — Dismissal of insureds’ complaint against insurer for fraud on the court — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint without conducting evidentiary hearing requested by insureds to permit them to refute insurer’s allegations of fraud

43 Fla. L. Weekly D885a
248 So. 3d 180

Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — In breach of contract action against insurer in which coverage was in dispute, it was a departure from essential requirements of law to compel insurer to produce items from its claim file

43 Fla. L. Weekly D150b
234 So. 3d 843

Insurance — Discovery — Privilege — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law when, after in camera review, it entered order compelling production of documents insurer claimed were protected by work product privilege and attorney-client privilege without making specific findings addressing each privilege claim — Remand for further proceedings

43 Fla. L. Weekly D573a
240 So. 3d 22

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Deductible — PIP insurer is not required to apply a policy deductible to the total amount of a provider’s invoices to an insured prior to applying any fee schedule found in section 627.736 — Insurer must reduce the provider’s charges to statutorily-approved permissive fee schedule before applying the deductibles — Conflict certified — In-depth discussion of PIP statute, focusing on reasonableness, interpretation of statute, and application of statute to instant case

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2463b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Deductible — When calculating the amount of PIP benefits due, the deductible is to be subtracted from the total medical charges before applying the statutory reimbursement limitations provided in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2014) — Conflict certified — Question certified: When calculating the amount of PIP benefits due an insured, does section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes, require that the deductible be subtracted from the total amount of medical charges before applying the reimbursement limitation under section 627.736(5)(a)1.b., or must the reimbursement limitation be applied first and the deductible subtracted from the remaining amount?