2018

43 Fla. L. Weekly D353b
241 So. 3d 221

Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Insured prevailing in action against insurer — Contingent fee multiplier — Trial court’s award of contingent fee multiplier without making a finding as to whether market required the multiplier was an error apparent on face of record, so that transcript of evidentiary hearing is not required for appellate court to reverse award and remand to trial court to consider issue anew

43 Fla. L. Weekly D316b
239 So. 3d 747

Insurance — Homeowners — Assignment of claim benefits — Trial court erred in dismissing assignee’s action against insurer on basis that assignment was invalid because insured’s mortgagee had not consented to the assignment as required by policy — Policy language restricting assignment of post-loss claim benefits is contrary to Florida law

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1076a
249 So. 3d 681

Insurance — Homeowners — Assignment of right to policy benefits to one firm that provided services following water damage to home was not barred by insured’s assignment of benefits to a different firm that also provided services following the incident — When assignment of “any and all insurance rights, benefits, and causes of action” under property insurance policy is read in context of entire assignment and purpose for which it was entered, it is evident that insured assigned all rights under policy to payment for the specific services provided by each assignee

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2056a
255 So. 3d 344

Insurance — Homeowners — Assignment — Clause in insurance contract requiring signatures of all insureds and mortgagees for an assignment of benefits was enforceable — Conflict certified

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2178a
261 So. 3d 613

Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Post-loss assignment of claim — Trial court properly found that assignment to public adjuster in one case was invalid because it violated state law prohibiting public adjusters from entering into a contract that charged homeowners more than 20% of the payments made on the insurance claims where agreement required homeowners to pay 20% of any recovered insurance money plus attorney’s fees and costs — Genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether assignment in second case violated 20% cap where homeowners agreed to pay assignee 10% of recovered insurance money plus prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs, and there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to how much assignee would be awarded in attorney’s fees and costs if it prevailed in the litigation — Assignee’s argument that it was no longer acting as homeowners’ public adjuster once lawsuits were filed is without merit where undisputed evidence was that insureds engaged the professional services of assignee for collection and pursuit of payment on their post-loss claims and agreements gave assignee discretion to file claim in court if necessary — Statute excepting duly licensed attorneys from definition of public “adjuster,” and from requirements of section 626.854, including 20% cap, did not apply to assignee, which agreed that it was a duly licensed public adjuster

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1513a
251 So. 3d 181

Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Trial court erred by denying insurer’s motion for new trial grounded on insured’s improper arguments and questioning of insurer’s litigation manager that shifted focus inappropriately to insurer’s claims handling and bad faith, which were not issues before the jury — New trial also warranted by highly prejudicial and inflammatory comments made by insured’s counsel in closing argument improperly denigrating insurer’s defenses — Remand for new trial — Although insured’s counsel’s references to insured’s payment of premiums during opening statement and closing argument may have been improper and irrelevant to dispute at issue, whether objected-to comments alone were so highly prejudicial and inflammatory as to warrant new trial when viewed in context of counsel’s argument as whole is questionable

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1929a
259 So. 3d 167

Appeals — Non-final orders — Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Appraisal — Circuit court acting in its appellate capacity did not depart from essential requirements of law in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of county court non-final order compelling appraisal and staying proceedings — No merit to contention that the county court order was a final order entitling opposing party to a direct appeal

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1684a
251 So. 3d 931

Insurance — Homeowners — Damage to roof and home’s interior caused by wind from tornado — Appraisal — Trial court erred by denying insurer’s motion to compel appraisal to determine causation and amount of loss where insurer did not wholly deny that there was a covered loss

43 Fla. L. Weekly D854a
244 So. 3d 310

Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of insurer where insurer moved to compel appraisal immediately upon learning of insureds’ suit disputing amount of payment and timely paid appraisal award, without objection by homeowners

43 Fla. L. Weekly D2321a
256 So. 3d 245

Insurance — Condominiums — Appraisal — Insurer complied with post-loss obligation to adjust claim within ninety days of receipt of the claim by making an advance payment within that time period — Insurer engaged in a meaningful exchange of information regarding its calculation of the claim amount where adjusters and consultants for both parties met for inspections and exchanged claim related documentation — Impartial appraiser — Insurer’s chosen appraiser did not breach policy language requiring parties to select an impartial appraiser despite insured’s appraiser being an employee of building consultant hired by insurer and the boss of another employee involved in actually considering the insured’s claim — An appraiser’s direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of appraisal including any arrangement for a contingent fee requires disclosure as provided by the Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes rather than disqualification of appraiser — No error in declining to allow extensive discovery through depositions as a precondition to the appraisal process where trial court had ample evidence that the parties disagreed regarding claim amount, meaningful information had been exchanged regarding the parties’ positions, and appraisal process will incentivize the parties to share information supporting computation of labor costs and materials required to compensate the insured in accordance with the policy