Civil Litigation
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Insurance Cases: 28
State Farm v. Loo
35 Fla. L. Weekly D 352a (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010) (February)
2010-02-10
INSURANCE
The company insured a building which later sustained damage in a fire. The company paid benefits to the landlord and then brought a subrogation action against a tenant in the building,
who was allegedly responsible for the fire. The trial court entered summary judgment for the tenant, ruling that the company did not have subrogation rights against the tenant because the tenant was an implied co-insured. The district court reversed this decision, holding that such a company may have subrogation rights against a tenant when the tenant’s lease does not say “in unequivocal terms” to the contrary.
Read More
A man alleged that he was assaulted by bouncers at a bar, and the bar demanded that its insurance company defend it in the subsequent suit. The company declined to defend the bar on the basis that the bouncers had committed an intentional tort. The bar obtained private counsel and settled the case through arbitration. The man later filed a motion to vacate this judgment, though, arguing that the company should have been joined as a party to the claim. The trial judge granted this motion because the bar did not oppose it, although the company
did. The district court reversed this decision, holding that the trial judge’s power to vacate a
judgment on account of negligent mistake or error was not intended to correct one side’s “tactical errors” at trial.
Read More
Viveiros v. Cooper
27 Fla. L. Weekly D2562 (Fla. 4th DCA December 6, 2002)
2002-12-06
INSURANCE
When determining whether to compel disclosure of substance abuse treatment records, a court may require disclosure if the objecting party fails to provide a privilege log or if an in camera inspection of the records reveals that a psychotherapist-patient privilege does not apply. If the court decides the privilege applies to any of the records, it must then determine whether the requesting party has shown good cause for disclosure by examining whether the public interest and the need for disclosure outweigh the potential injury to the client, to the service provider-client relationship, and to the service provider itself as mandated in Section 397.501(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2001).
Read More
The general rule is that nonpublic employers do not have standing to assert a right to privacy on behalf of their employees when employee files are included in discovery requests. However, nonpublic employees may have a legitimate privacy interest in certain information in their personnel files and they may have standing as interveners in litigation to protect that interest. Courts should consider that alleged privacy interest to determine the relevancy of the information whether the employee has intervened or not. Furthermore, nonpublic employers may have standing to object that information in employee files is irrelevant. Due to the broad scope of discovery under Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.280, if private and confidential information that is not relevant is redacted or withheld from the documents produced, it would be appropriate to require the records custodian to provide to the requesting party details concerning the information withheld, to enable the parties to fully address the issue at the trial level and to challenge the trial court
Read More
Non-compete agreements are enforceable where the employment is terminable at will by either the employee or employer, even where an employee has been requested to execute such agreement after commencement of employment.
Read More
The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that once an insurance company reserves its right to deny coverage, the insured had the right to take control of the case and defend his/her interests. In addition, even if the insured violated the notice provision in the insurance policy, the insurance company has suffered no prejudice as a result of that violation and cannot defend its duty to reimburse the insured's expenses.
Read More
The 1999 amendments to
Read More
The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that proof of a permanent injury is not an absolute prerequisite to awarding future medical expenses. Furthermore, the court found that when a verdict is returned to the jury for a correction, the entire cause remains in the jury's hands and it can alter any part of the verdict until it is accepted by the trial court.
Read More
The First District Court of Appeal found that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding portion of a doctor's deposition regarding future medical treatment and future medical costs. The court held that whatever qualification was placed on the doctor's opinion goes to the weight of the opinion, and not its admissibility. The jury should have been allowed to hear and weigh the doctor's testimony regarding future medical care and costs.
Read More
A case may be removed into a federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, in order to approve a settlement and apportionment of a minor
Read More
Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant where genuine issues of material fact remained as to defendant
Read More
An indemnity agreement within a contract agreeing to "indemnify . . . against any and all claims [did] not disclose an intention to indemnify for consequences arising solely from the negligence of the indemnitee." Therefore, the court found that this language is sufficiently clear and unequivocal so as to make the indemnitee liable for joint negligence, unless it can be determined that one party was exclusively or solely negligent.
Read More
Submission of a fraudulent bill under the PIP portion of a divisible automobile liability policy does not void uninsured motorist coverage for any loss that occurs in connection with any material misrepresentation, fraud or concealment of material facts, or if any material misrepresentation or omission was made on the auto insurance application.
Read More
The trial court did not err in granting motion for summary judgment in favor of attorneys in legal malpractice case on grounds of judgmental immunity where attorneys did not assure client their theories were
Read More
Giles v. Luckie
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1126 (Fla. 1st DCA, May 24, 2002)
2002-05-24
INSURANCE
Section 627.737 (2), Florida Statutes, exempts a covered defendant from liability for all noneconomic damages, not just those specifically listed, except in cases involving a threshold injury. Since this is a recurring issue in the courts of Florida, the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: "Does section 627.737 exempt a covered defendant from liability for all noneconomic damages unless a threshold injury is established?"
Read More
The Florida Supreme Court quashed the decision of the district court and remanded with directions that a new trial be granted based on certain jurors failing to provide honest responses during voir dire questioning. The Court relied on De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1995), wherein a three-prong test was established to determine whether a juror
Read More
When pursuing a claim of malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove six elements, two of which are absence of probable cause in the original proceeding and malice on the part of the present defendant. The plaintiff need not allege actual malice; legal malice is sufficient and may be inferred from, among other things, absence of probable cause.
Read More
Durkin v. Davis
27 Fla. L. Weekly D995 (Fla. 2nd DCA May 10, 2002)
2002-05-10
INSURANCE
In order to prove malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish each of the following elements: 1) that the original judicial proceeding was commenced or continued; 2) the defendant was the legal cause of the original proceeding; 3) a bona fide termination of the original proceeding in the favor of the current plaintiff occurred; 4) probable cause was absent from the original proceeding; 5) malice on the part of the present defendant; and 6) damages were suffered by the present plaintiff as a result of the original proceeding. Furthermore, a plaintiff does not need to prove actual malice. Rather, legal malice is sufficient and can be inferred through a lack of probable cause, gross negligence, or great indifference to persons, property, or the rights of others.
Read More
The 11th Circuit determined that the District Court should have dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 as required under 28 U.S.C.
Read More
A modification document is an impermissible attempt to modify an original agreement retroactively so as to shift priority of insurance coverage after an insured loss has occurred.
Read More
When a child is injured prenatally in an automobile accident caused by her mother
Read More
There was no error in granting summary judgment in favor of an insurer where the policy in question expired sixteen hours before the incident giving rise to the claim.
Read More
The court found that an insurance policy which was silent with regard to payment for the diminished value of a repaired vehicle did not require the insurer to compensate the insured for the inherent diminution of value due to the fact that it had been involved in a collision.
Read More
The court found that the purpose of a non-owned insurance clause in an insurance policy is to provide coverage to the insured while engaged in infrequent or casual use of an automobile other than one described in the policy. If courts were to hold otherwise, then there would be no reason to specifically list automobiles to be covered on an insurance policy or, more importantly, pay the premiums on specific automobiles, as all automobiles that are used in a business could fall under this non-owned business clause. A non-owned auto clause is not designed to exempt the insured from paying premiums on vehicles that are regularly used, but rather to provide coverage for automobiles that are used in infrequent emergency circumstances.
The insurance policy in this case provided liability coverage for bodily injury caused by the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. Injuries to the Plaintiff resulted from the use of the highjacker
Read More
The insurance carrier contended that res judicata barred the insured
Read More
This was an action arising out of group health insurance plans, alleging that the insurer and administrator violated the Florida Statutes when they canceled policies without properly offering replacement coverage. The appellate court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review a trial court
Read More
Florida law has generally recognized that duplicate coverage from both an automobile liability policy and a general liability policy for an automobile accident injury covered by an automobile policy is not ordinarily available simply by retention. Where an insured defendant in a typical automobile negligence lawsuit is both the owner of the motor vehicle and the employer of the driver, the claim arises out of the ownership and use of the insured
Read More
An uninsured motorist carrier stands in the shoes of the tortfeasor when defending a claim made against it by its insured, in that the insurer may assert defenses that would be available to the uninsured motorist. Allstate Insurance Company v. Boynton, 486 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1986). That does not mean, however, that an insurer stands in the shoes of the tortfeasor when one insurer seeks contribution from the other as an alleged co-obligor. Nor does it mean that in a case controlled by North Carolina law, a cause of action under section 768.31 may be brought.
Read More
