2019

44 Fla. L. Weekly D67c
263 So. 3d 154

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Evidence — Trial court erred by allowing insured to present MRI exhibit to jury with the opinions of insured’s expert superimposed on the MRI images — Although images themselves were admissible, expert’s annotations represented his opinions and were not “factual findings,” as insured contended — Trial court erred by precluding insurer from using the admitted MRI exhibit to obtain the opinion of its own expert on the same images — Errors were harmless

44 Fla. L. Weekly S300a
286 So. 3d 157

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Collector vehicle policy — An insurer that issues a reduced premium collector vehicle policy may not limit uninsured motorist coverage under that specialty policy to accidents involving the occupancy or use of the collector vehicle

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2639a
284 So. 3d 1074

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Coverage — Plaintiff seeking coverage from her automobile insurer for injuries plaintiff suffered while training in the back of a truck that operated a mobile gym — No error in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer because mobile gym was not an uninsured auto within the meaning of plaintiff’s policy — Policy clearly and unequivocally provided that a vehicle located for use as a premises is not an uninsured auto, and truck was being used as a premises when negligence occurred where clients worked out in mobile gym only when it was stationary, parked, and connected to a power source, and never worked out when gym was being driven as a vehicle

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2581a
283 So. 3d 398

Insurance — Uninsured/underinsured motorist — Knowing, written rejection of UM coverage — Issue of adequacy of insurer’s online click-through process was not reached in prior appeal in which court affirmed trial court’s legal determination that insurer was not entitled to conclusive statutory presumption that insured had rejected UM coverage, but remanded for new trial on issue of whether insurer made knowing, written rejection of UM coverage — Adequacy of click-through process had no bearing on insurer’s ability to proceed to trial — Petition for writ of mandamus and/or certiorari denied

44 Fla. L. Weekly D1279a
276 So. 3d 349

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Passenger in rental car who was injured in an accident involving an uninsured/underinsured motor vehicle was not an “insured person” entitled to UM coverage under driver’s insurance policy where rental car did not meet policy’s definition of “covered auto” — Rental car was not a permanent replacement for vehicle insured under driver’s policy, and insured driver was not a beneficial owner of the rental vehicle such that rental vehicle fit into policy’s definition of an “additional auto”

44 Fla. L. Weekly D543b
271 So. 3d 1108

Torts — Title insurer — Action arising out of buyer’s allegations that, although title company confirmed seller’s title and the absence of legal challenges to seller’s title, title company’s title examination negligently missed post-judgment, duly-docketed motion to vacate foreclosure judgment and challenge seller’s title — Error to dismiss complaint with prejudice based on broad language contained in release where sweeping exculpatory language in release was facially inconsistent with the more specific title insurance obligations contained in a later contract for sale and purchase and the title commitment delivered to buyer in accordance with that contract — Trial court’s interpretation of the documents nullified contract provisions requiring seller to provide title insurance and to complete review of the foreclosure docket

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2449b
279 So. 3d 1279

Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Insurance — Homeowners — Trial court abused its discretion by entering summary judgment in favor of insurer after denying insured’s motion for continuance to allow insured to depose insurer’s corporate representative where representative was first identified when insurer filed representative’s 45-page summary judgment affidavit about 20 days before hearing on motion for summary judgment and insured responded promptly by requesting representative’s deposition and moving for continuance

44 Fla. L. Weekly D1352b
276 So. 3d 352

Insurance — Personal injury protection — School buses — Reimbursement — Sovereign immunity — Insurer seeking reimbursement from school board and school board’s insurer for PIP benefits insurer paid to its insureds who were injured while passengers on a school bus owned by the school board — No error in concluding that insurer’s action was not barred by sovereign immunity where Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law specifically includes public school buses in the definition of “commercial motor vehicle” and thereby subjects owners of public school buses to the reimbursement provision of section 627.7405(1) — By expressly including vehicles owned by an entity that ordinarily enjoys the protection of sovereign immunity in the definition of vehicles subject to a statutory action for reimbursement, while at the same time expressly excluding other vehicles “used in mass transit” and “owned by a municipality, a transit authority, or a political subdivision of the state,” the legislature has clearly and unequivocally waived sovereign immunity for owners of vehicles used for public school transportation in actions brought under section 627.7405(1) — School board is not exempt from reimbursement due to the fact that the legislature, under section 627.733(1)(a), expressly exempted motor vehicles used as school buses from statutory requirement to maintain no-fault insurance coverage — Express exemption of school buses from requirement to maintain no-fault insurance does not conflict with express inclusion of school buses in definition of “commercial motor vehicle,” and plain language of section 627.7405(1) expressly provides that the right of reimbursement against the owner of a commercial motor vehicle exists notwithstanding section 627.733(1)(a) — School board’s insurer is an “insurer” as contemplated by section 627.7405(1) where, although insurer did not provide no-fault PIP insurance for school buses, the school board’s policy provided insurance coverage for the school bus at issue — Fact that the injured parties were not “insureds” under school board’s policy, and were in fact specifically excluded, is of no consequence as the school board’s insurer is not liable to reimburse the injured parties’ insurer pursuant to the specific terms of the school board’s policy, but rather pursuant to the plain language of section 627.7407(1)

44 Fla. L. Weekly D3045b
290 So. 3d 980

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Language of PIP statute does not preclude an insurer from limiting its reimbursement to 80% of the total billed amount when the amount billed is less than the statutory fee schedule — Circuit court in its appellate capacity departed from essential requirements of law by holding that statute mandates that an insurer must reimburse the full amount billed where the amount billed is less than the maximum allowed under the statutory fee schedule

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2017b
276 So. 3d 523

Appeals — Certiorari — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Second-tier review of circuit court appellate decision concluding that insurer has right to raise “unlawfulness” affirmative defense to provider’s ability to seek PIP benefits denied, as there was no showing that circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, failed to afford petitioner procedural due process in the appeal or failed to apply correct law resulting in miscarriage of justice