46 Fla. L. Weekly D1869b JERMAINE NEMBHARD and DONNETTE NEMBHARD, Appellants, v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-1383. L.T. Case No. 17-1852. August 18, 2021. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Martin Zilber, Judge. Counsel: Giasi Law, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi and Erin M. Berger Read More »
Articles
Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Claims in excess of limits — Accord and satisfaction — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer based on conclusion that check issued by insurer in amount of coverage limits constituted a valid accord and satisfaction where check did not include conspicuous statement that it was tendered in full satisfaction of claim — Although insurer sent additional correspondence with the check, language of correspondence stated only that insurer did not receive or approve a request to exceed limits as required by the policy, and did not include a statement that no further benefits would be payable or that amount of check was the maximum amount payable — No error in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer based on affirmative defense that insurer paid maximum amount due under the policy — Plaintiff failed to request that insurer allow it to exceed the policy limit before submitting invoice for completed work as policy required, and insurer paid policy limit to plaintiff
46 Fla. L. Weekly D1865a CERTIFIED PRIORITY RESTORATION a/a/o CHERYL COAKLEY, Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-374. August 18, 2021. Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Edward A. Garrison, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 502019CC003953XXXXMB and 502020AP000026CAXXMB. Counsel: Gray R. Proctor Read More »
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Deductible — Appeals — Absence of transcript — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer in case involving proper application of policy deductible — Although there is no transcript of pre-trial conference where ruling was made, error is apparent on face of record where explanation of review documents submitted by insurer show that insurer applied the fee schedule authorized by 627.736(5)(a)1.f. to total charges before applying PIP deductible
46 Fla. L. Weekly D1817a NORTH BROWARD CHIROPRACTIC AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC. a/a/o CRISTINA CORRIDORI, Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-328. August 11, 2021. Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John D. Fry, Judge; L.T. Case No. CONO18-7121, CACE19-5560. Counsel: Michelle J. Kane Read More »
Insurance — Homeowners — Directed verdict — Error to enter directed verdict in insurer’s favor on claim that insurer breached contract by not fully paying for a covered loss within 20 days of receiving insured’s sworn proof of loss based on trial court’s conclusion that insurer had 90 days to investigate claim — Subsection in loss-payment provision of insurance policy which contained the 90-day limit commenced upon insurer’s receipt of notice of an initial claim, not upon filing of sworn proof of loss — Viewing facts in light most favorable to insured, insured’s lawsuit was not premature where a jury could have found that insurer received notice of initial claim more than 90 days prior to the filing of insured’s suit — Even assuming suit was premature, proper procedure would have been to abate the action or dismiss without prejudice — Trial court erred by granting insurer a directed verdict on count which alleged that insurer breached contract by not fully repairing home after it exercised its option to repair — Based on testimony at trial, a jury could reasonably have found that insurer exercised its option to repair notwithstanding insurer’s failure to give written notice as policy required
46 Fla. L. Weekly D1795a MARY IWANICKI, Appellant, v. SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D19-4583. August 11, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Cheryl K. Thomas, Judge. Counsel: Jeffrey S. Pekar of Pekar Law, P.A., Tampa, and Jason A. Herman of Herman & Wells, P.A., Pinellas Park, for Appellant. Read More »
Insurance — Bad faith — Third-party bad faith — Contracts — Cunningham agreements — Limitation of actions — Trial court erred in dismissing bad faith action based on conclusion that claim was barred by statute of limitations — Parties’ modified Cunningham agreement, which was intended to serve as the functional equivalent of the excess judgment needed to pursue third-party bad faith claim, did not constitute the functional equivalent of an excess judgment until the court approved it one year after both parties had signed it — Trial court’s conclusion that agreement did not require court approval was not supported by the plain language of the agreement, and was inconsistent with the parties’ stated purpose for entering the agreement — Because bad faith action was filed within four years from date trial court approved parties’ agreement, the action was not barred by statute of limitations
46 Fla. L. Weekly D1796a WRIGHT INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. and ANTHONY WRIGHT, Appellants, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D19-1068. August 11, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Patricia A. Muscarella, Judge. Counsel: Jason Mulholland of Mulholland Law, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants. Lee W. Marcus of Marcus Read More »