46 Fla. L. Weekly D2221a ALBERTA S. ELLISON, Appellant, v. RANDY WILLOUGHBY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D19-1961. October 13, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ralph C. Stoddard, Judge. Counsel: Paul L. Nettleton of Carlton Fields, P.A., Miami; and Christine R. Davis of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. Brent Steinberg, Read More »
Articles
Insurance — Homeowners — Water extraction and remediation — Emergency measures — Reimbursement limitation — Assignee’s action against insurer claiming breach of contract for failure to pay for water extraction services at insured’s property — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer where clear wording of policy established a reimbursement cap on expenses for emergency measures which could not be exceeded without request to, and prior approval from, insurer — Trial court did not err in rejecting assignee’s alternative argument that it could recover under policy provision insuring against direct loss to property because invoice was for water extraction and “remediation,” and thus not within emergency measure policy provisions — Complaint clearly described plaintiff’s work as water extraction and not as any type of repair — Moreover, work under that policy provision was not encompassed by terms of assignment
46 Fla. L. Weekly D2245b DAMAGE SERVICES, INC. a/a/o GNH REAL ESTATE, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-604. October 13, 2021. Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Florence Taylor Barner and Jennifer Hilal, Judges; L.T. Case Nos. COCE19-007411 and CACE20-11788. Counsel: William J. Read More »
Insurance — Assignment of benefits — Restrictions — No error in dismissing assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer where assignment of claim benefits was not signed by all insureds as required by the policy — Conflict certified
46 Fla. L. Weekly D2242a THE KIDWELL GROUP, LLC d/b/a AIR QUALITY ASSESSORS OF FLORIDA a/a/o FRANCINE NOVEMBRE, Appellant, v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D20-1014. October 13, 2021. Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Sandra Bosso-Pardo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018SC016320. Counsel: Chad Read More »
Small claims — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — No error in determining that insurer was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to insurer’s proposal for settlement — Insurer was not required to specifically invoke Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 in order for its proposal for settlement to be enforceable — Rule unambiguously states that it applies to all proposals for settlement authorized by Florida law, and law is clear that proposals for settlements are authorized in PIP cases filed in small claims court
46 Fla. L. Weekly D2256e CENTRAL FLORIDA MEDICAL AND CHIROPRACTIC CENTER A/A/O RONALD SEALEY, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D21-29. L.T. Case Nos. 2014-20479-CONS, 2020-100001-APCC. Opinion filed October 15, 2021. Appeal from the County Court for Volusia County, Angela Dempsey, Judge. Counsel: Kimberly P. Simoes, of The Simoes Law Read More »
Torts — Automobile accident — Damages — Setoff — Collateral sources — Settlement agreements — Uninsured motorist insurance — No error in denying defendant’s request to set off settlement proceeds plaintiff received from plaintiff’s uninsured motorist insurer against jury verdict — Defendant preserved claim that she was entitled to setoff of settlement proceeds under section 768.041(2) where, although defendant never specifically cited the statute below, the issue was thoroughly litigated in the trial court, and both parties and trial court relied on case law analyzing setoff of UM settlements under both sections 768.041(2) and 768.76(1) — Defendant is not entitled to a setoff in amount of settlement under section 768.041(2) where claims plaintiff asserted against his UM insurer were not asserted against defendant, and defendant was indisputably not a joint tortfeasor with UM insurer — Although settlement does not differentiate categories of damage to which the settlement funds are attributable, defendant is not entitled to recover the entire amount of the undifferentiated recovery as a setoff where plaintiff’s claims against UM insurer could not be brought against defendant — Court rejects argument that denial of setoff results in a windfall to plaintiff — Setoff under section 768.76(1) is unavailable because the UM insurer settlement proceeds do not fall within the statutory definition of “collateral sources” set forth in section 768.76(2)(a) — Extracontractual damages paid to a first-party claimant on a UM bad faith claim do not meet definition of “collateral source” because it is not a payment of “benefits” — Fact that some portion of the proceeds fell within the definitional ambit of section 409.910(6) has no bearing on whether the proceeds meet the definitional criteria of section 768.76(2)(a), which provides a narrower, more specific definition of “benefits” and sources thereof than section 409.910(6) — Question certified: Is a settlement payment made by an uninsured motorist insurer to settle a first-party bad faith claim subject to setoff under section 768.041(2) or a collateral source within the meaning of section 768.76?
46 Fla. L. Weekly D2221a ALBERTA S. ELLISON, Appellant, v. RANDY WILLOUGHBY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D19-1961. October 13, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ralph C. Stoddard, Judge. Counsel: Paul L. Nettleton of Carlton Fields, P.A., Miami; and Christine R. Davis of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. Brent Steinberg, Read More »