2020

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1359d
299 So. 3d 1152

Insurance — Life insurance — Unclaimed property — Death Master File — Facial constitutional challenge to sections 717.107(1), (8), and (9) brought by insurance companies alleging that retroactive application of the three amendments was a denial of insurance companies’ right to due process — Discussion of insurers’ use of DMF to search and contact deceased policy holders for payment of benefits, and statutory amendments at issue — Overall, the three amendments are consistent with the remedial purpose of Florida’s unclaimed property laws and are in fact remedial in nature such that their retroactive application is generally permissible — Although trial court found that amendments were substantive, a “substantive” label does not necessarily preclude retroactive application if the statute itself expresses intent to apply retroactively and retroactive application is not unconstitutional — Legislature expressly intended amendments to apply retroactively — Amendments do not impair insurance companies’ vested rights, as insurance companies have no vested rights in unclaimed property — Given the broad existing statutory duties of insurers, it cannot be concluded that the three amendments are a facially unconstitutional imposition of new obligations as to all insurers in all situations — There is no general impediment or burden on all insurers as to justify facially invalidating the amendments in toto

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2710a

Insurance — Life — No designated beneficiary — Termination of parental rights — Adoption — Trial court erred in awarding decedent’s life insurance policy proceeds to decedent’s parents over decedent’s biological son based on determination that the minor was not the child of decedent pursuant to joint stipulation and consent to adoption decedent had executed shortly before his death — Section 63.172 makes it clear that parental rights are not terminated until the adoption is final — Because adoption of minor was not finalized by the time of decedent’s death, minor was legally the child of decedent — Language of insurance policy was clear and unambiguous, and there was no need to resort to parol evidence as the trial court did in this case — As decedent’s child, and with no surviving spouse, default beneficiary provision in policy provides that proceeds would go to child — While life insurance proceeds can be fixed by a settlement agreement and can override beneficiary designations within the policy, the settlement agreement must directly reference the life insurance proceeds to change beneficiary designation — Where neither the joint stipulation nor consent referenced life insurance proceeds, plain language of the policy controls

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2108b

Insurance — Liability — Medical payments benefits — Dismissal — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint alleging that plaintiff was entitled to benefits under medical payments provision of policy as a third-party beneficiary on basis that plaintiff was already compensated for medical expenses by settlement with insured — Trial court erroneously considered the settlement, which was a matter outside the four corners of the complaint — Court also erroneously considered insurer’s affirmative defenses, thereby essentially transforming motion to dismiss into an unarticulated motion for summary judgment — Further, final judgment prematurely addressed the merits on a motion to dismiss

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1572a

Prohibition — Jurisdiction — Petition seeking to prohibit circuit court from attempting to exercise further jurisdiction over certain matters in residential insurance case against Citizens Property Insurance Corporation dismissed as legally insufficient — There is no indication trial court agreed to exercise jurisdiction over a non-party’s claims following notice of voluntary dismissal of case, much less that trial court intended to exercise such jurisdiction prospectively

45 Fla. L. Weekly D385a
290 So. 3d 926

Insurance — Jurisdiction — Amount in controversy — Transfer — Appeals — Certiorari — Case transferred to county court based on circuit court’s determination that amount in controversy was less than $15,000 because of insurer’s contention that, despite complaint alleging entitlement to estimated damages in excess of threshold amount, insureds’ loss was subject to water limitation in policy which capped damages at $10,000 — Circuit court departed from essential requirements of the law where insurer failed to prove that loss was exclusively attributable to water, and insureds dispute that water limitation applies — Furthermore, circuit court failed to apply proper test for determining jurisdiction — Proper test in determining threshold matter of jurisdiction is whether damages were pled in good faith, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest insureds have not pleaded their damage amount in good faith

45 Fla. L. Weekly D686a
293 So. 3d 572

Torts — Automobile accident — Proposal for settlement — Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Subrogation — Case involving plaintiffs’ purchase of defendant’s earlier-served, and subsequently rejected, proposals for settlement from defendant’s bankruptcy estate in an attempt to withdraw those proposals and avoid paying attorney’s fees and costs under section 768.79 — Jurisdiction — Court rejects argument that trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine, and invaded province of bankruptcy court by determining, that bankruptcy trustee’s sale of proposals for settlement was invalid — Trial court unquestionably had subject matter jurisdiction to rule on statutory and rule-based motion for attorney’s fees and costs — Discussion of differences between subject matter and “case jurisdiction” — Trial court possessed case jurisdiction to consider the validity of plaintiffs’ withdrawal of the proposals for settlement — Trial court properly declared plaintiffs’ notice of withdrawal of proposals for settlement to be a nullity and of no force and effect — Bankruptcy trustee could only sell whatever title and rights defendant had in the proposals for settlement, which is determined by Florida law — Because defendant’s insurer assumed defense of the tort action, insurer was subrogated to any right defendant had to recover litigation costs and attorney’s fees incurred and was the real party in interest as to the proposals for settlement — Having failed to possess the equitable interest in the proposals for settlement, plaintiffs did not have the power to withdraw them — Additionally, because the proposals were open for over thirty days without acceptance or written withdrawal of the offer by defendant, any purported withdrawal of the proposals after the expiration of the thirty-day period was a legal nullity and an event not contemplated by rule or statute — Moreover, the most reasonable interpretation of withdrawal provision of section 768.79 is that the withdrawal of an offer must be made by the offeror

45 Fla. L. Weekly D612a
299 So. 3d 519

Insurance — Property — Citizens Property Insurance Corporation — Error to enter final summary judgment in favor of Citizens where, to significant extent, Citizens’ supporting materials were improperly authenticated

45 Fla. L. Weekly D128b
290 So. 3d 560

Insurance — Homeowners — Summary judgment — Supporting affidavits — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer on insurer’s breach of contract and fraud claims — Affidavit of corporate representative filed in support of insurer’s motions was insufficient basis for summary judgment where affidavit lacked sufficient information establishing that affiant possessed personal knowledge and competency to testify to the matters set forth in the affidavit, which included statements ranging from contract interpretation to trade specialties of plumbing and contracting

45 Fla. L. Weekly D641d

Insurance — Property — Replacement cost policy — When insurer issues replacement cost policy, insurer is required initially to pay insured at least the actual cash value of the covered loss, less the deductible, and is thereafter required to pay its insured for repairs as the insured incurs repair costs — Trial court properly instructed jury on how to value insured’s relevant damages, and verdict in favor of insured was supported by competent substantial evidence

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a

Insurance — Homeowners — Post-loss obligations — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court correctly found that insureds materially breached post-loss condition precedent to commencement of lawsuit by failing to provide insurer a sworn proof of loss — Insureds did not substantially comply with obligation by providing mold report and condominium leak report through their public adjuster — Remand for trial court to analyze issue of whether insurer was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to comply