Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

Articles

by

Insurance — Commercial automobile — Coverage — Duty to defend — After-acquired vehicle — Insurer brought action seeking declaratory judgment that it did not have duty to defend or indemnify insured and driver of after-acquired vehicle in underlying state court action arising out of automobile accident because the vehicle had never been added to insurance policy — Insurer had a duty to defend insured and driver because, under Florida law, corporate vehicle involved in the accident was covered at the time of accident under the commercial automobile policy’s after-acquired auto provision — Grace period — Under Florida law, acquiring a vehicle triggers automatic coverage for the initial 30-day grace period, and notice of acquisition during that period triggers extended coverage, unless otherwise stated in the commercial automobile insurance policy with after-acquired auto provisions — After-acquired auto provision in insured’s policy did not require additional premium payment before coverage could be extended — Claim by insurer, raised for first time on appeal, that it never received satisfactory initial notice that insured wanted to continue coverage for after-acquired vehicle after 30-day notice period because it never received signed quote or premium payment from insurer came too late, where insurer conceded in proceedings in district court that insured, through insurer’s agent, provided notice to insurer within 30-day period — Explicit terms of after-acquired auto provision required only an initial notification within 30-day period — Known loss principle under Florida law that precluded procuring coverage after the fact for losses that already had taken place did not apply to insured that sought and obtained coverage before accident occurred — Additional premium payment — Insured was not entitled to free coverage for after-acquired vehicle, although after-acquired auto provision did not include requirement to pay premium by certain date and policy lacked precise due date — Premium audit and cancellation provisions in policy provided agreed-upon avenues for insurer to resolve due date for outstanding premiums — Premium audit provision applied to compute final premium due once insured’s “actual exposure” during policy period had been determined — Because insurer did not perform premium audit and never sent bill to insured for final premium that took into account all changes made during policy period, insurer could not resort to common-law default principles requiring payment within a reasonable time — Insurer was required to follow contractually agreed-upon method for canceling coverage after 30-day period for failure to pay quoted premium, and that provision required insurer to notify insured in writing prior to canceling coverage — Structure of policy prevented insurer from denying coverage for after-acquired vehicle under provision stating that only “those autos for which a premium charge is shown” received coverage

30 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C2172a PRIME PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee, v. KEPALI GROUP, INC., YORDANI OLIVA RODRIGUEZ, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Cross Claimants, Appellees, JACQUELINE RONEY, JACKERLINE ROSE RONEY, Defendants-Appellees, BROWN & BROWN OF FLORIDA, INC., NORMAN L. MORRIS, Counter Defendants-Cross Defendants-Appellees. 11th Circuit. Case No. 23-12518. May 2, 2025. Read More »

by

Civil procedure — Discovery — Interrogatories — Nonparties — Financial information — Rule 1.340, which governs interrogatories, does not extend to nonparties — An order requiring nonparty to respond to interrogatories constitutes departure from essential requirements of law, causing irreparable harm — Fact that order at issue required defendants’ interrogatory answers to be “executed and notarized” by nonparty experts contravenes rule 1.340, even though interrogatories were not directly served on nonparties — Order requiring defendants to furnish “any” information relating to nonparty experts’ financial relationship with defendants, their attorneys, and insurers encompasses financial and business records — Absent finding of unusual or compelling circumstances, this type of production exceeds that authorized by rule 1.280 and precedent and creates palpable risk of cat-out-of-the-bag disclosures

50 Fla. L. Weekly D1035a RAUL SUAREZ, et al., Petitioners, v. COURTNEY ALEXANDER, et al., Respondents. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-1850. L.T. Case No. 22-23838-CA-01. May 7, 2025. A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko Sanchez, Judge. Counsel: Sastre Saavedra & Epstein, PLLC, Richard C. Kearley III, and Michael Read More »

by

Insurance — Property damage — Homeowners — All-risk policy — Coverage — Water damage — Roof leak — Exclusions — Opening not created by covered peril — Age-related wear and tear — Endorsement excluding loss caused by water penetrating through roof system unless penetration was a direct result of damage caused by a covered peril clearly precluded coverage for an “ensuing loss” in form of water damage to the home’s interior where leak was caused by age-related wear and tear, an explicitly excluded peril — Assignee failed to present evidence of any exception to exclusion

50 Fla. L. Weekly D1038a SPARTAN SERVICES CORP., et al., Appellants, v. PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D23-2301. L.T. Case No. 21-33904-CC-05. May 7, 2025. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Miesha Darrough, Judge. Counsel: Vyacheslav Borshchukov, P.A., and Slava Borshchukov (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants. Brett Frankel and Read More »

by

Insurance — Property damage — Witnesses — Recall — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying insurer’s request to recall witness where any additional testimony would have been cumulative in nature

50 Fla. L. Weekly D1041a UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. DR. ELIAS CHOUSLEB, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-0200. L.T. Case No. 20-3269-CA-01. May 7, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. Counsel: Russo Lima Appellate Firm, P.A., Elizabeth K. Russo and Paulo R. Lima, for Read More »

by

Insurance — Property — Windstorm loss — Insolvent insured — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Limitation of actions — Applicable statutes — No error in granting summary judgment in favor of FIGA on claims that FIGA breached contract and its statutory duties based on its refusal to pay insured’s claims of hurricane damage — Because suit was filed more than five years after hurricane struck, suit was time-barred by policy’s five-year contractual limitation and the five-year statutory time limit in sections 95.11(2)(b) and (2)(e) — Pursuant to section 631.57(1)(b), FIGA was entitled to rely on all defenses available to insolvent insurer, including the statute of limitations — Court rejects argument that, because FIGA was sued for both breach of statutory duty and contractual duty, the applicable statutes of limitation are sections 631.68 and 95.11(5)(d) — Sections 95.11(5)(d) and 631.68 were intended to provide protections against FIGA’s financial liability for claims in addition to other limitation provisions that might apply under section 95.11

50 Fla. L. Weekly D970a CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OF GOLF VILLAS, II, INC., Appellant, v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC., as statutory successor to American Capital Assurance Corp., Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-1059. April 30, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Brett M. Waronicki, Judge; L.T. Case Read More »

The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility.