2019

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2125b
284 So. 3d 582

Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Requests for discovery of insurer’s underwriting and claims files were facially improper in their entirety where issues of insurer’s liability and amount of policy owners’ damages had not been finally determined — Order allowing discovery was departure from essential requirements of law which would result in irreparable harm

44 Fla. L. Weekly D3056a
285 So. 3d 411

Jurisdiction — Service of process — Out-of-state service by mail — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by denying motion to quash subpoena duces tecum without deposition purportedly served by mail on nonparty located outside the state of Florida where service did not comply with foreign state’s law authorizing such service

44 Fla. L. Weekly D785a

Insurance — Discovery — Experts — Financial relationships — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law in compelling defendant to disclose documents concerning financial arrangements between defendant’s attorney, insurance company, and retained expert witness — Question certified: Whether the analysis and decision in Worley v. Central Florida Young Men’s Christian Ass’n, 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017), should also apply to preclude a defense firm that is not a party to the litigation from having to disclose its financial relationship with experts that it retains for purposes of litigation including those that perform comprehensive medical examinations under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360?

44 Fla. L. Weekly D1072b
269 So. 3d 623

Insurance — Property — Coverage — Water damage — Insured’s action against law firm retained to report and settle property loss claim — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by ordering production of documents responsive to requests that appear on their face to potentially invade the attorney-client or work-product privileges without first conducting an in camera inspection — Trial court erred by ordering disclosure of documents relating to communications between retained law firm and homeowners regarding the loss without first conducting in camera review of documents to determine whether the attorney-client privilege applied — Trial court erred by ordering production of documents generated or created by firm before reviewing the documents responsive to that request to determine whether they were the firm’s work product — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by finding that homeowners waived their attorney-client privilege when firm’s legal assistant contacted their insurer to report the property loss

44 Fla. L. Weekly D1951b
278 So. 3d 212

Appeals — Certiorari — Discovery orders — Insurer failed to demonstrate that trial court departed from essential requirements of law by allowing insured to take deposition of insurer’s representative after insurer had filed a confession of judgment acknowledging that insured was entitled to coverage for personal injury protection benefits and coverage for any property damage claims against him — Confession of judgment did not end case, as issue of damages remained to be adjudicated — Fact that deposition of insurer’s agent could potentially lack relevancy on outstanding damages issue is not basis for certiorari relief

44 Fla. L. Weekly D119a
259 So. 3d 1013

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. — 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?

44 Fla. L. Weekly S59a
260 So. 3d 219

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Deductible — Section 627.739(2) requires the deductible to be applied to the total medical charges prior to reduction under the reimbursement limitation in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b.

44 Fla. L. Weekly D383a
271 So. 3d 1079

Insurance — Subrogation — Landlord-tenant — Implied co-insured — Subrogation action arising from landlord insurer’s attempt to recover money from tenant that insurer paid to landlord for fire damage sustained to landlord’s building — Trial court erred in concluding that tenant was an implied co-insured with landlord and dismissing insurer’s subrogation action — Review of the lease as a whole makes it clear that the parties did not intend to shift the risk of loss caused by tenant’s negligence to the insurer where the lease explicitly holds tenant liable for damages caused by its negligence or the negligence of its agents; there are provisions holding landlord harmless for damage caused by tenant; the lease required tenant to procure and maintain fire insurance for damage arising out of accidents occurring in or around premises; and tenant agreed to name landlord as an additional insured — Although lease required tenant to pay a percentage of landlord’s insurance premiums, nothing in that provision explicitly required landlord to purchase fire insurance or name tenant as an insured under the policy

44 Fla. L. Weekly D1486a
274 So. 3d 398

Insurance — Discovery — Depositions — Failure to produce witness — Sanctions — Trial court abused its discretion in striking plaintiffs’ pleadings and imposing sanctions on plaintiffs’ law firm based on law firm’s alleged failure to produce non-party witness for deposition where plaintiffs and their law firm cannot be held accountable for the failure of a non-party to appear for deposition, and trial court failed to identify any rule or court order that plaintiffs or law firm failed to obey — Trial court’s finding that law firm’s waiver of appearance at deposition indicated law firm was aware that deposition would not proceed, and thus engaged in misconduct, was not supported by record — Law firm’s election not to appear at deposition does not equate to misconduct because it was not unreasonable for law firm to waive its appearance where witness had exhibited a pattern of not appearing at depositions — Trial court erred in basing sanction on failure of law firm or plaintiffs to engage in meaningful discovery without identifying any discovery orders which plaintiff violated — Record reveals no evidence supporting finding that law firm failed to obey court’s order and inform witness that he was required to be available for subpoena — Trial court erred in basing a finding of noncompliance on determination that witness was an agent of the law firm where evidence and record were insufficient to establish that witness’s failure to appear for deposition fell within the scope of alleged agency relationship — Because trial court erred in striking pleadings based on law firm’s failure to produce witness for deposition, it also erred in imposing attorney’s fees based on the same theory — Trial court erred in entering order requiring plaintiffs to provide a better address for witness where plaintiffs had already provided an address at which witness was served

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2527a
281 So. 3d 510

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Intentional torts — Estoppel — Complaint for declaratory judgment, filed by insurer more than a year after it began providing insureds with a defense in civil action, seeking determination that insurer had no duty to defend and indemnify insureds against intentional tort litigation because policy only covered bodily injury and property damage — Error to grant summary judgment in favor of insurer where insurer’s motion failed to address any of insureds’ affirmative defenses — Where a movant merely denies an affirmative defense and the affidavit in support of summary judgment only supports the allegations of the complaint and does not address the affirmative defense, the burden of disproving the affirmative defense has not been met — Insureds’ equitable estoppel defense was legally sufficient — An insurer may be estopped from denying coverage, even where the policy does not cover the claim, where the insured has been prejudiced by insurer’s assumption of the insured’s defense