2020

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2237e

Insurance — Homeowners — All-risks policy — Attorney’s fees — Sinkhole claims — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Trial court erred in awarding insured attorney’s fees and costs in her sinkhole lawsuit under the confession of judgment doctrine based on FIGA’s agreement to pay for aboveground, non-sinkhole damages pursuant to settlement agreement — FIGA did not affirmatively deny a covered claim and was not responsible for attorney’s fees where, although settlement agreement obligated FIGA to pay something to resolve lawsuit, FIGA never acknowledged that claim was covered under policy and it was undisputed, by virtue of settlement agreement, that there was no sinkhole activity

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1151b

Insurance — Homeowners — All risk policy — Concurrent cause doctrine — Where water damage to insured home was caused by water entering home through walls and windows, an excluded cause, and by water entering through door, a cause which was not excluded, trial court erred in granting directed verdict in favor of insured on basis of concurrent cause doctrine because policy contained an anti-concurrent cause provision — Because evidence of water entering through the walls and windows was undisputed and expressly excluded by policy, entire loss is excluded from coverage due to anti-concurrent cause provision

32 Fla. L. Weekly D2212c

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Windstorm damage — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer in action brought by insured after insurer denied coverage for hurricane damage based on insurer’s assertion that insured made material misrepresentation in her application for insurance when she indicated that her home was three miles from the “gulf,” although independent inspector reported that home was one and one-quarter miles from gulf — Genuine issues of material fact existed as to actual distance to shoreline from insured’s home; whether average person in insured’s position should know that distance to shoreline must be measured “as the crow flies” or how insured should accomplish such a measurement, as opposed to relying on her experience traveling the shortest route or estimating the distance; whether independent insurance agent was insured’s agent for purpose of insurer’s notice of its intent to cancel wind damage coverage of homeowner’s policy or if, in fact, insurer actually notified agent of the problem; and whether insurer waived defense to wind damage coverage by failing to give notice for over sixty days and waiting until after hurricane had passed to issue policy change endorsement — Moreover, application was ambiguous in asking only “distance to gulf” without explaining meaning or purpose of question or specifying means by which applicant was to determine or estimate distance