46 Fla. L. Weekly S291a STEVEN YOUNKIN, Petitioner, v. NATHAN BLACKWELDER, Respondent. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC19-385. October 14, 2021. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal Direct Conflict of Decisions/Certified Great Public Importance. Fifth District — Case No. 5D18-3548 (Orange County). Counsel: Kansas R. Gooden, Miami, and Read More »
Articles
Insurance — Bad faith — Refusal to settle — Summary judgment in favor of insurer on claimant’s Florida bad faith claim was appropriate because no reasonable jury could conclude that insurer acted in bad faith before, during, or after sending the proposed release to claimant — Overbroad language in insurer’s proposed release, which insurer made clear it was willing to modify and to let claimant’s attorney re-draft the release, did not create a fact question regarding bad faith under totality of circumstances of case, because what came before and after the overbroad release was sent demonstrates that insurer fulfilled its duty to act in good faith — District court aptly concluded that the before, during, and after facts show that insurer “did not act in bad faith in sending the unsolicited proposed release with the tender of the $50,000 BI policy limits under the circumstances of this case” — While an overbroad release can create a jury question about bad faith under Eleventh Circuit law, it “doesn’t necessarily do so” because question of bad faith is determined under totality of circumstances standard, and the scope of a release is only one of circumstances courts consider — Totality of circumstances show how the failure to settle the lawsuit against insureds did not result from bad faith of insurer
29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C383a RAUL A. PELAEZ, as Limited Guardian of the Person and Property of John Poul Pelaez, ward, and Michael Adam Conlon, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. 11th Circuit. Case No. 20-12053. September 20, 2021. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. Read More »
Insurance — Liability — Duty to defend or indemnify — Action by insurer seeking declaration that, based on policy provisions, it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured for original or amended state court complaint against insured or the state court consent judgment that had been entered against its insured on state-court plaintiff’s claims for damages allegedly resulting from insured’s negligent performance of duties undertaken as manager of state-court plaintiff’s citrus groves — Counterclaims by state-court plaintiff alleging breach of contract based on insurer’s refusal to defend and indemnify its insured and a declaration that state court consent judgment was enforceable against insurer — District court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer on all claims and counterclaims — Because insurance policy excluded coverage for the damages alleged in the amended state court complaint, insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify, and consent judgment entered based on Coblentz agreement between state-court plaintiff and insured was unenforceable for that reason — Under Florida law, insurer’s duty to defend arises when complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring suit within policy coverage — Damage to citrus groves fell within policy’s exclusion for property damage to “[t]hat particular part of real property on which you . . . are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of these operations” — Exclusion applied to policy’s “farm care-taker” endorsement — Taken together, endorsement and exclusion meant that coverage extended to property damage caused by insured’s farm care-taker operations, but not if the damage was to real property, such as citrus groves
29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C276a THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD MCKENZIE & SONS, INC., HERMANNS REAL ESTATE VENTURES, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. 11th Circuit. Case No. 18-13172. August 26, 2021. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 8:17-cv-02106-SDM-CPT). (Before BRANCH, TJOFLAT, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.) Read More »
Torts — Dog owner’s liability — Directed verdict — Action for damages under section 767.01 by plaintiff who alleged that defendant’s dog, whom plaintiff and his wife had agreed to watch, caused both physical and neurological injuries when dog ran up behind plaintiff and knocked him down, rendering him immediately unconscious — Trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to set aside verdict in favor of defendant and plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict where whether plaintiff had been injured in incident involving defendant’s dog and extent of his injuries were hotly contested at trial and inconsistencies in plaintiff’s version of events placed his credibility at issue — Directed verdict reversed — New trial — Order granting new trial on damages after entering directed verdict on issue of liability must also be reversed — Remand for reinstatement of jury’s verdict and entry of judgment in accordance with that verdict
46 Fla. L. Weekly D2100a RICHARD FANNIN, Appellant, v. ACE HUNTER, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D19-4293. September 22, 2021. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Adrian G. Soud, Judge. Counsel: Rhonda B. Boggess, Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant. Michael J. Korn, Korn & Zehmer, P.A., Jacksonville; Joshua A. Woolsey and Read More »
Workers’ compensation — One-time change of physician — Choice of physician — Judge of compensation claims did not err by preserving employer/carrier’s right to select alternative physician after concluding that e/c’s prior alternative physician selection was unreasonable based on the distance between alternative physician’s office and claimant’s residence — Argument that e/c forfeited its right to select physician by failing to timely provide an alternate physician was not preserved for appeal — Even if argument was properly raised, argument fails on the merits where it is undisputed that e/c provided timely authorization of alternate physician, and claimant never complained that he was not provided with appointment dates
46 Fla. L. Weekly D2055a JAMES HARMAN, Appellant, v. MERCHANT TRANSPORT, CCMSI, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D19-4071. September 15, 2021. On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Carol J. Stephenson, Judge. Date of Accident: May 16, 2017. Counsel: Matthew Carrillo of The Law Firm of Carrillo & Carrillo, P.A., Gainesville, Read More »