48 Fla. L. Weekly D1817a SEND ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Appellants, v. SET DRIVE, LLC, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D23-1175. L.T. Case No. 23-14668. September 13, 2023. An Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jennifer D. Bailey, Judge. Counsel: Douglas Cox, and Nicole Pearl, in proper persons. Read More »
Articles
nsurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Water damage — Act of nature — Tear out costs — Limitation of liability — Water loss caused by deterioration of property’s cast iron plumbing — Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of insureds based on determination that, because corrosion of pipes was a “natural process” and not an “act of nature,” policy’s water damage exclusion was inapplicable, and the limited water damage endorsement containing limit of liability was not triggered — Deterioration of cast iron pipes constituted an “act of nature” within the meaning of the policy and limited water damage endorsement was triggered — LWD endorsement did not provide coverage for tear-out costs, but only provided coverage for sudden and accidental direct physical loss by water
48 Fla. L. Weekly D1819a PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SHEILA BANKS, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-1436. L.T. Case No. 20-1425. September 13, 2023. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Counsel: Brett Frankel and Jonathan Sabghir (Deerfield Beach); and Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Read More »
Insurance — Property — Coverage — Water damage — Sudden discharge of water from plumbing systemNAOMI BEAUBRUN, Appellant, v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-469. L.T. Case No. 17-1210. August 30, 2023. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge. Counsel: Mintz Truppman, P.A., and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for appellant. Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., and Maureen G. Pearcy; and Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, and Joseph V. Manzo, for appellee.
48 Fla. L. Weekly D1749a (Before LOGUE, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.) (PER CURIAM.) Naomi Beaubrun (“Insured”) appeals from the trial court’s order entering final summary judgment in favor of the insurer, GeoVera Specialty Insurance Co. (“GeoVera”), and denying her motion for partial summary judgment. We affirm. The relevant provisions in the Insured’s policy Read More »
Insurance — Homeowners all-risk policy — Coverage — Water damage — Direct physical loss during policy period — Exclusions — Trial court erred in denying insured’s motion for directed verdict regarding insured’s initial burden of proving that a direct physical loss occurred during policy period where it was undisputed that ceiling collapse occurred during the policy period — Case remanded for jury trial on remaining issue of whether exclusion for long-term leakage and seepage precluded coverage — Jury instructions — Trial court did not err in refusing to give requested instruction stating that insured was entitled to recover for damages caused during first 13 days of constant or repeated seepage or leakage because proposed instruction did not accurately state the law applicable to the policy at issue, which excluded coverage for constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water or stream occurring “over a period of weeks, months or years” without indicating a specific number of days
48 Fla. L. Weekly D1733b LEE FELDMAN, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D22-865. L.T. Case No. CACE17- 012462. August 30, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carol-Lisa Phillips, Judge. Counsel: David B. Pakula of David B. Pakula, P.A., Pembroke Pines, and David Read More »
Insurance — Automobile — Insurer who filed a claim under her automobile insurance policy after her vehicle was damaged in an accident sued insurer claiming breach of policy after insured declared the vehicle a total loss and paid her what it deemed the actual cash value of vehicle — Breach of contract — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that insurer breached the policy by using an illegal methodology to calculate actual cash value — District court did not err in ruling insurer’s methodology for calculating actual cash value complied with Florida law — As matter of first impression, Section 626.9743(5), Florida Statutes, which provides that, in calculating “actual cash value” of insured’s vehicle based on actual cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle “derived from … two or more comparable motor vehicles available [in local market area] within the preceding 90 days,” did not require that “actual cash value” equal actual cost to purchase comparable vehicle — Insurer’s use of the Uniform Condition Adjustment, advertised prices of comparable motor vehicles, and the Certified Collateral Corporation ONE Market Valuation system to calculate the actual cash value of insured’s vehicle complied with Florida statute — Statute did not require that insurer use “retail cost as determined from generally recognized motor vehicle industry source” if it utilized one of other two statutory alternative methods for determining cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that it breached the policy by failing to pay, as part of vehicle’s actual cash value, dealer fees incurred in purchasing replacement vehicle — Insurer was not required to pay insured’s out-of-pocket dealer fees — Under Florida and Eleventh Circuit law, “actual cash value” in an insurance policy means replacement cost less depreciation, and replacement cost includes dealer fees if the policyholder is reasonably likely to need to incur dealer fees — Insured failed to satisfy the standard for inclusion of dealer fees in replacement cost where insured showed a reasonable likelihood that she would incur dealer fees if she chose to purchase her replacement vehicle from a dealer and that a policyholder is reasonably likely to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer, but failed to show that a policyholder is reasonably likely to need to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer
29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C2691a GINA SIGNOR, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee. 11th Circuit. Case No. 21-13148. July 3, 2023. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 0:19-cv-61937-WPD). (Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR, and Read More »