Abbey Adams Logo

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

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

March 5, 2015 by admin

Bad Faith – Discovery – Premature Action

40 Fla. L. Weekly D574a



Insurance — Bad faith — Discovery — Premature action — Appeals — Certiorari — Nonfinal order denying motion to dismiss premature bad faith action is not subject to interlocutory review — Petition for certiorari review dismissed without prejudice to defendants’ moving to abate bad faith action — Discovery — Petition granted with respect to claim that trial court erred in overruling objection to plaintiff’s premature bad faith discovery requests

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and JAMES BAYLIS, Petitioners, v. RIVERSIDE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., a/a/o NORMANDEL BURKE, ISMAIL SARABI and JORGE DE LA O, Respondents. 4th District. Case No. 4D14-1535. March 4, 2015. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Thomas Lynch, IV, Judge; L.T. Case No. 13-13358 CACE05. Counsel: Thomas L. Hunker, Miami, for petitioners. Philip D. Parrish of Philip D. Parrish, P.A., Miami, and Henry A. Seiden, West Palm Beach, for respondents.
(PER CURIAM.) Defendants United Automobile Insurance Company and James Baylis seek certiorari review of the circuit court’s nonfinal order: (1) denying their motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s premature bad faith action; and (2) overruling their objections to the plaintiff’s premature bad faith discovery requests.
We grant the petition as to the discovery objections. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (granting petition for certiorari on the basis that, “until the obligation to provide coverage and damages has been determined, a party is not entitled to discovery related to the claims file[ ] or to the insurer’s business policies or practices regarding handling of claims”) (citation omitted).
We dismiss the petition as to the denial of the motion to dismiss. See State Farm Ins. Co. v. Ulrich, 120 So. 3d 217, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“A nonfinal order denying a motion to dismiss an insurance bad faith action is not subject to interlocutory review via petition for writ of certiorari.”). However, our dismissal is without prejudice to the defendants’ moving to abate the bad faith action. See Tranchese, 49 So. 3d at 810 (“We grant the petition [for certiorari] as to the abatement, because the final determination of coverage and damages for the underlying claim has not been made, which must precede a statutory bad faith action.”).
Petition granted in part, dismissed in part. (GROSS, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Attorney’s fees — Trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of insureds where filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute — Where insurer admitted coverage for damage to interior of home, but denied coverage for damage to roof, the dispute over cause of loss to roof was an amount of loss issue for appraisers, not a coverage issue for court — Where insurer demanded appraisal prior to filing of lawsuit by insured, and indicated that it would repair any damage awarded in appraisal, the filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute over roof damage
  • Insurance — Commercial liability — Exclusions — Assault and battery — Insurer had no duty to defend insured in action alleging injury arising out of assault and battery on insured’s premises where policy contained endorsement excluding coverage for injury arising out of or resulting from assault or battery
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Assignees — No error in finding that appraisal provision of insured’s homeowner’s policy applied to insured’s assignee and granting insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Policy did not classify appraisal as a duty of the insured — Assignee received an assignment that entitled it to receipt of payment from insurer, and concomitant with that right was its duty to comply with the conditions of the contract that afforded it payment
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Post-loss obligations — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer after finding that insureds had forfeited their policy coverage for failure to provide a sworn proof of loss — Policy did not eliminate duty of insured to provide sworn proof of loss where insurer opted to repair — However, because insureds complied to some extent with policy requirements, and policy required insurer to prove it was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to provide sworn proof of loss, material issues of fact remain
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Watercraft exclusion — No error in determining that watercraft exclusion in the insureds’ homeowners’ insurance policy precluded coverage for injuries sustained by a third party in a boating accident that occurred when the insured son, who had permission to use the boat from the insured father, allowed another third party to pilot the boat while intoxicated — The only applicable exception to the watercraft exclusion unambiguously states that the watercraft exclusion does not apply if the outboard engine or motor is not owned by an insured, and the boat and engine in this case were owned by the insured father — Severability clause, which provides that the policy “applies separately to each insured,” did not render watercraft exclusion ambiguous — Exceptions to the watercraft exclusion are not dependent on the insured who seeks coverage, but on the nature of the watercraft at issue

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982