Abbey Adams Logo

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

Uncategorized

by

Workers’ compensation — Insurance — Contractors — Coverage — Cancellation — Conditions precedent — Promissory estoppel — Judge of compensation claims did not err in concluding that claimant was not covered under employer/subcontractor’s workers’ compensation insurance policy because insurer had cancelled the policy for nonpayment prior to claimant’s accident — Court rejects argument that cancellation of policy was ineffective because policy contained a condition precedent allowing employer/subcontractor the opportunity to pay unpaid premiums before policy was cancelled — Provision of policy stating that the unpaid premium is immediately due and payable when payroll deduction is terminated or suspended for any reason was not a condition precedent because provision did not expressly condition cancellation on a second nonpayment — Policy’s only stated condition precedent to cancellation was ten days’ notice to policyholder, which insurer satisfied by mailing notice to employer/subcontractor’s last known address — Determination that insurer was not estopped from cancelling policy based on general contractor’s reliance on the certificate of liability insurance provided by employer/subcontractor is affirmed — Any error by JCC in focusing on the reasonableness of general contractor’s reliance on the COI is harmless because the JCC’s finding that any reliance by general contractor on the COI was not reasonable is supported by competent, substantial evidence and makes enforcement unnecessary to avoid injustice

46 Fla. L. Weekly D581a DENNIS F. SCOTT, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. JAMES A. JONES CONSTRUCTION CO., Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. CENTRAL FLORIDA SIDING PROS, LLC, NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., LION INSURANCE COMPANY, PACKARD CLAIMS, NOBLES AMERICAN SERVICES, LLC, Appellees/Cross-Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-689. March 16, 2021. On appeal from an order of the Office Read More »

by

Workers’ compensation — Costs — Prevailing party — Judge of compensation claims erred in denying claimant’s request for costs — Claimant was the prevailing party because the specific benefits requested were provided only after claimant filed the petitions for benefits

46 Fla. L. Weekly D612a AMER ALI, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES and SEDGWICK CMS, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-987. March 17, 2021. On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Sylvia Medina-Shore, Judge. Date of Accidents: February 25, 2011; August 24, 2014. Counsel: Toni L. Villaverde of Toni L. Villaverde, PLLC, Read More »

by

Insurance — Homeowners — Condition precedent — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer based on determination that insured’s sworn statements and proofs of loss did not provide information required under the policy — Insured was not required to utilize insurer’s proof of loss forms, and a review of the record shows that forms utilized by insured provided most, if not all, information regarding insured’s claim that was requested in insurer’s own forms, especially when considering each proof of loss was accompanied by an attached itemized repair estimate — Forms were not devoid of attachments as insurer represented, nor were they lacking in sufficient explanation of how insured arrived at the amount of her damages as the trial court found — Trial court erred in denying insured’s motion for rehearing which asserted that insurer failed to plead or set forth in written motions for summary judgment its claim that insured failed to provide repair estimates — Rule 1.120(c) requires that any denial of compliance with a condition precedent must be specific, and rule 1.510(c) requires a party moving for summary judgment to state the grounds upon which it relies with particularity — Furthermore, the parties had agreed that insured had submitted detailed repair estimate with each proof of loss

46 Fla. L. Weekly D555b ALEXANDRA LOPEZ, Appellant, v. AVATAR PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D20-64. March 12, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Michael Murphy, Judge. Counsel: William D. Mueller, Elliot B. Kula, and W. Aaron Daniel, of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami, for Appellant. Carol Read More »

by

Insurance — Homeowners — Insured’s post-loss obligations — Failure to attend examination under oath — Trial court erred by granting insurer’s motion for directed verdict on issue of whether insured materially breached insurance contract by failing to attend EUO — For an insurer to establish a coverage defense based upon an insured’s failure to satisfy post-loss obligations such that the insured forfeits coverage under the policy, insurer must plead and prove that insured materially breached a post-loss policy provision — If insurer establishes such a material breach by insured, burden then shifts to insured to prove that any breach did not prejudice insurer — New trial required at which factfinder can determine whether insurer proved that insured’s failure to attend EUO was a material breach of the contract and, if so, whether insured then proved that this material breach did not prejudice insurer

CELERINA NUNEZ, Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D19-1614. L.T. Case Nos. 16-1435 & 16-1284. March 10, 2021. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A. Hanzman, Judge. Counsel: Giasi Law, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi and Erin M. Berger (Tampa), for appellant. Link & Read More »

by

Torts — Proposal for settlement — Validity — Defendant accepting plaintiffs’ joint settlement proposal after one of the plaintiffs accepted defendant’s individual offer to settle — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to enforce settlement agreement — Since plaintiff accepted defendant’s offer prior to defendant accepting plaintiffs’ offer, defendant would not have been able to fulfill her obligations under the specific terms of the plaintiffs’ offer — Because defendant could not fulfill all her obligations under the plaintiffs’ offer, the offer was no longer valid

46 Fla. L. Weekly D547a KAREN KETTERLING and PARKER KETTERLING, Appellants, v. VIRGINIA M. MORRIS, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-37. March 10, 2021. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. John Jay Gontarek, Judge. Counsel: Mark J. Upton of Daniell, Upton & Perry, P.C., Spanish Fort, AL; Isaac R. Ruiz-Carus and Katherine Read More »