2020

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1439f

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claims — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association is not liable for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with sinkhole claim — Question certified: Does the language in section 631.54(3)(c) regarding attorney’s fees in connection with a sinkhole loss operate to prevent a sinkhole claimant from receiving fees from FIGA under section 631.70?

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1475a

Insurance — Automobile — Uninsured motorist — Resident relative — Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment determining that automobile insurer was required to provide UM coverage to insured’s resident relative where, although provision of insured’s policy excluded resident relatives who owned an automobile at time of accident from UM coverage such as the relative at issue, a separate provision in policy provided basic liability coverage to relative — If a motor vehicle liability insurance policy provides bodily injury liability coverage, then it must also provide UM coverage to those insured under the policy — While a policy may include specific provisions that exclude certain insureds from UM coverage if named insured knowingly accepts such a limitation and insurer offers a reduced premium, insurer in case at issue neither obtained informed acceptance nor provided reduced rates

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1209a

Insurance — Homeowners — Damage to house consisting of cracks in walls and flooring as result of vibrations caused by off-site blasting operations is excluded by earth-movement/settlement exclusion in policy — Trial court properly concluded that policy excluded from coverage indirect damage to property as result of earth movement that may have been triggered by off-site fire or explosion

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2390b

Evidence — No error in trial court’s exclusion of insurance adjuster’s report — Report was protected work product, and plaintiff failed to establish applicable exception to prohibition against use of such materials at trial — No error in determination that work product privilege was not waived — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s request to be recalled to witness stand as a rebuttal witness — Damages — Setoff — Collateral source — Error to include in amount of collateral source set-off a bill paid by plaintiff

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1351a
297 So. 3d 592

Insurance — Dismissal — Sanctions — Due process — No error in dismissing case as a sanction for plaintiff’s counsel’s bad faith conduct — Error to impose monetary sanction against plaintiff’s counsel because such relief was not sought and was imposed without notice and, accordingly, did not comply with due process — Additionally, trial court improperly prejudged the merits of the underlying lawsuit by entering monetary sanction in the amount sought by plaintiffs in their lawsuit against insurer

45 Fla. L. Weekly D483a
291 So. 3d 137

Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Dismissal — Fraud upon the court — Trial court abused its discretion in dismissing case for fraud upon the court based on finding that evidence provided completely contradicted insureds’ position that garbage disposal under the sink caused the water damage where record does not demonstrate that insureds knowingly entered a scheme to defraud the insurer and the court — Collective inconsistencies between the insureds’ statements regarding the cause of loss and repair were not significant enough to warrant dismissal and could have been managed through impeachment and other less severe sanctions

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2634a

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Discovery — Protective order — Appeals — Certiorari — First-party declaratory action concerning coverage under homeowners’ insurance policy — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by denying insurer’s motion for protective order seeking to prevent production of insurer’s “protocol, policy and guidelines” for complying with section 627.70131(5)(a) — Although insureds have not pled a bad faith claim, requested discovery with respect to section 627.70131(5)(a) is nevertheless impermissible

45 Fla. L. Weekly D588a
291 So. 3d 663

Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Work product privilege — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in compelling production of photographs taken by insurer’s investigator during home inspection related to insureds’ claim for water damage on the basis that insurer had not filed a privilege log — Obligation to file a privilege log does not arise until after court has ruled on party’s non-privilege discovery objections

45 Fla. L. Weekly D135a

Torts — Automobile accident — Discovery — Experts — Financial relationships — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law in ordering defendants in personal injury case to provide information regarding the financial relationship between medical experts retained by defendant and defendant’s liability insurer and counsel — Question certified: Whether the analysis and decision in Worley should also apply to preclude a defendant’s liability insurer who is providing a defense to its insured or the retained defense law firm, neither of whom is a party to the litigation, from having to disclose their financial relationship with physicians that provide evaluations of petitioner’s medical condition including those that perform compulsory medical examinations under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360?

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1429a
298 So. 3d 1252

Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Work product privilege — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by requiring insurer to produce photographs within its claim file, and photographs and reports within its underwriting file, pertaining to the condition of the subject property when the insurance policy was issued — Although insurer’s objection to request at issue was work product privilege, insurer never attempted to demonstrate that photographs at issue were prepared in anticipation of litigation — Furthermore, insurer did not attempt to establish the basis for its objection with documentary evidence, such as a supporting affidavit, but instead only asserted a categorical claims file or underwriting file privilege — There is no claims file privilege