2020

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2128a
302 So. 3d 500

Insurance — Bad faith — Appeals — Certiorari — No irreparable harm occurred as a result of trial court’s order barring insured’s bad faith claims as premature — Insured may bring forth bad faith claims once she establishes she is entitled to recover her insurance benefits

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2121b

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Evidence — Settlement offers — Mediation communications — New trial — Loss of consortium — No error in dismissing insured wife’s loss of consortium claim where wife failed to file a civil remedy notice — Trial court erred in admitting insurer’s activity log which memorialized the insureds’ settlement offer at mediation — Activity log note containing insureds’ mediation offer was irrelevant where it had nothing to do with whether insurer acted in bad faith when it failed to tender policy limits until after insured husband’s CRN had expired — Note was inadmissible pursuant to section 90.408 where note reflected settlement negotiations between the same parties involved in the bad faith trial — Additionally, activity log note was inadmissible because it was a privileged mediation communication — Although insureds and the insurer were parties to the mediation, activity log note was published to a party outside the ambit of those privileged to see it under section 44.405 when it was introduced into evidence and published to the jury — Remand for new trial

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1714a

Insurance — Bad faith — Discovery — Privileged information — Appeals — Insurer seeking certiorari review of trial court order requiring insurer to produce documents, which insurer claims are privileged and/or work product documents, after in camera inspections by a special master and the trial court — Petition is denied where insurer failed to preserve the documents at issue for appellate review — In the absence of a record reflecting the material reviewed by the trial court, appellate court cannot review trial court’s findings — Insurer may not cure incomplete appendix under rule 9.220(a) where nothing indicates that insurer followed proper procedure for filing documents at issue under seal with the trial court — Because documents are not in trial court’s record, they cannot be transmitted to appellate court for review under the rule

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2092a
302 So. 3d 485

Insurance — Homeowners — Bad faith — Failure to attempt in good faith to settle claim — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment for insurer in insureds’ bad faith action on ground that insurer cured a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer’s Violations by invoking the appraisal process before the CRN was filed and paying the appraisal award more than sixty days after the CRN was filed — CRN is not required to contain a specific amount sought to cure alleged bad faith

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2380a

Insurance — Bad faith — Conditions precedent — Civil remedy notice — Notice filed against incorrect entity — Waiver — Trial court erred in dismissing insured’s complaint for bad faith with prejudice based on finding that insured’s civil remedy notice was ineffective as a matter of law because insurer was misidentified — Although trial court was correct in finding that the misidentification failed to strictly comply with section 624.155(3), insurer had waived the argument by not raising the misidentification in its response to the civil remedy notice

45 Fla. L. Weekly D696a

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1349b

Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Vicarious liability — Damages — Insurance — Liability limitations — Action against vehicle owner arising from fatal accident caused by permissive driver — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of vehicle owner based on determination that owner’s liability was statutorily limited to $100,000, and that vehicle owner’s insurance coverage of $250,000, which was paid by owner’s insurer toward plaintiff’s claim against driver, satisfied owner’s maximum liability — Plaintiff’s argument that a vehicle owner’s policy cannot be used to both satisfy vehicle owner’s maximum liability and count towards driver’s combined policy limits is unsupported by statute’s unambiguous language — Section 324.021(9)(b)3 limits a vehicle owner’s liability to $100,000 per person if the permissive user’s combined limits are $500,000 or more, and nothing within the statute indicates that a vehicle owner’s liability cap and permissive driver’s combined limits are mutually exclusive — There is no language excluding insurance payments under a vehicle owner’s policy from the calculation of a permissive driver’s combined policy limits — Driver had combined coverage of over $500,000 when vehicle owner’s policy under which driver was a permissive user was added to driver’s three other policies

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2199a

Insurance — Bad faith — Civil remedy notice — Deficient notice — No error in dismissing complaint against insurer based on finding that insured’s civil remedy notice, which cited thirty-five statutory provisions and listed nearly every provision in insurance policy, failed to satisfy statutory requirement that an insured state with specificity the policy language and statutory provisions at issue — Court rejects argument that notice was sufficient because the Department of Financial Services has statutory authority to return deficient notices but failed to do so — Department’s discretionary grant of authority did not determine the legality of the notice, nor is there evidence that the department even considered the issue — Even if department made specific determination about notice’s legality, the courts must independently review the notice

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1349b
295 So. 3d 829

Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Vicarious liability — Damages — Insurance — Liability limitations — Action against vehicle owner arising from fatal accident caused by permissive driver — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of vehicle owner based on determination that owner’s liability was statutorily limited to $100,000, and that vehicle owner’s insurance coverage of $250,000, which was paid by owner’s insurer toward plaintiffs’ claim against driver, satisfied owner’s maximum liability — Plaintiffs’ argument that a vehicle owner’s policy cannot be used to both satisfy vehicle owner’s maximum liability and count towards driver’s combined policy limits is unsupported by statute’s unambiguous language — Section 324.021(9)(b)3 limits a vehicle owner’s liability to $100,000 per person if the permissive user’s combined limits are $500,000 or more, and nothing within the statute indicates that a vehicle owner’s liability cap and permissive driver’s combined limits are mutually exclusive — There is no language excluding insurance payments under a vehicle owner’s policy from the calculation of a permissive driver’s combined policy limits — Driver had combined coverage of over $500,000 when vehicle owner’s policy under which driver was a permissive user was added to driver’s three other policies

45 Fla. L. Weekly D120d
300 So. 3d 1220

Insurance — Automobile — Loss payable clause — Insurer breached its duty to vehicle’s lienholder when it issued settlement check for damage to vehicle to named insured without including lienholder — Trial court erred in finding that policy required insurer to protect interest of lienholder only if the insured vehicle was a total loss

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1409c
298 So. 3d 53

Insurance — Uninsured/underinsured motorist — Damages — Medical expenses — Remittitur — Set-off — Collateral source — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing jury’s award of past medical expenses to the amount of bills in evidence or in granting setoff of personal injury protection benefits paid by insurer — Trial court erred in failing to credit plaintiff for past PIP premium payments without further explanation — Trial court erred in reducing verdict based on Medicare reductions — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Insurer’s proposal for settlement was legally sufficient, and terms were sufficiently clear and definite to allow insured to make decision without needing clarification — Under circumstances, proposal was not ambiguous because it required insured to “satisfy all relevant liens” and stated that acceptance would “resolve all claims” against insurer — Amount of judgment — Trial court did not err in considering judgment obtained against UM insurer rather than judgment obtained through negotiation with negligent driver when evaluating whether insurer met threshold amount for award of attorney’s fees — No abuse of discretion in finding that nominal proposal was made in good faith — On remand, trial court to address issues of setoff and remittitur and to determine whether insurer’s proposal met threshold amount to trigger entitlement to attorney’s fees after net judgment is recalculated considering all legally authorized reductions