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

February 17, 2017 by admin

Insurance — Automobile liability — Coverage — Trial court erred in determining that there was coverage by operation of estoppel where insured failed to prove prejudice

 

42
Fla. L. Weekly D351c
Top of Form

Insurance
— Automobile liability — Coverage — Trial court erred in determining that
there was coverage by operation of estoppel where insured failed to prove
prejudice

PROGRESSIVE
EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. ANZUALDA BROTHERS,
INC., a Florida Corporation, JESUS E. MARINO CASTILLO, individually and as an
employee of Anzualda Brothers, Appellees/Cross-Appellees. 1st District. Case
No. 1D15-4700. Opinion filed February 10, 2017. An appeal from the Circuit
Court for Levy County. Stanley H. Griffis, III, Judge. Counsel: Scott A. Cole,
Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami; Joseph T. Kissane, Steven L. Worley,
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Lincoln J. Connolly, Trials & Appeals, P.A., Miami, for
Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Anzualda Brothers, Inc.

(WOLF,
J.) Appellant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, challenges the trial
court’s entry of a declaratory judgment determining that there was insurance
coverage in favor of appellee Anzualda Brothers, Inc. by operation of estoppel.
Appellant argues it should not have to provide coverage for appellee’s
accident, which resulted in the fatality of one victim and the injury of
another victim, because the vehicle appellee had been driving was not a listed
vehicle on the insurance policy, and because appellee failed to prove all three
elements of its coverage by estoppel claim.

Appellee
cross-appeals, alleging the trial court erred in its refusal to enforce a
settlement agreement and consent judgment that were agreed to by appellant and
entered in the separate, underlying tort case between appellee and the victims.

We
agree with appellant that appellee failed to prove all three elements of its
coverage by estoppel claim. In an insurance coverage by estoppel claim, the
plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant company made a representation of
material fact; (2) the plaintiff reasonably relied on that representation of
material fact; and (3) the plaintiff was prejudiced by its reliance. Bishop
v. Progressive Express Ins. Co.
, 154 So. 3d 467, 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
Because appellee failed to sufficiently prove prejudice, we reverse, vacate the
trial court’s final judgment in favor of appellee, and remand for the trial
court to enter final judgment in favor of appellant.

Because
we remand for the trial court to enter final judgment in favor of appellant,
appellee’s cross-appeal requesting damages from appellant in the amount
outlined in the settlement agreement is moot. (MAKAR and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.)

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Winn-Dixie, website, customers, prescription, place of public accommodation, coupons, refills, privileges, disabled, advantages, accommodations, visually-impaired, auxiliary, public accommodation, inaccessible, barrier, offerings, sighted, majority opinion, intangible, enjoyment, locator, rewards, card, district court, facilities, shopping, software, communicate, in-store – The difficulties caused by the customer’s inability to access much of the store’s website constituted a concrete and particularized injury that was not conjectural or hypothetical, and would continue if the website remained inaccessible; [2]-The statutory language in Title III of the ADA defining “public accommodation” was unambiguous and clear, and public accommodations were limited to actual, physical places, and websites were not a place of public accommodation under the statute; [3]-The store’s website did not constitute an intangible barrier to the customer’s ability to access and enjoy fully the physical grocery store; [4]-Absent congressional action that broadened the definition of “places of public accommodation” to include websites, the appellate court could not extend ADA liability to the facts presented.
  • Civil rights — Employment discrimination — Pharmacist employed by Department of Veterans Affairs brought action against Secretary, alleging that her managers at VA medical center discriminated against her based on her gender and age, retaliated against her because she engaged in protected activity, and subjected her to hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act — Retaliation — Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires personnel actions to be made free from any discrimination — Supreme Court’s decision in pharmacist’s case, which held that federal-sector provision of ADEA did not require plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of a challenged personnel action, undermined to the point of abrogation Eleventh Circuit’s prior panel precedent holding that Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires but-for causation — Standard that Supreme Court articulated for claims under ADEA’s federal-sector provision controls cases arising under Title VII’s nearly identical federal-sector provision — Retaliatory hostile work environment — An actionable federal-sector Title VII retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim must describe conduct that rises to the level of personnel actions and must be evaluated under “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” standard rather than the more stringent “severe or pervasive” standard
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable, related, and necessary medical treatment — Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Opposing affidavit — Trial court abused its discretion in granting motion to strike affidavit of independent medical examiner based on plaintiff’s claim that affidavit “baldly repudiated” affiant’s deposition testimony regarding relationship between injuries and accident and medical necessity of chiropractic treatment — Because affiant’s testimony raised genuine issue of material fact, as it clearly conflicted with testimony of treating chiropractor, order granting summary judgment in favor of assignee/medical provider reversed
  • Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Jurors — Peremptory challenge — Race neutral explanation — Genuineness — New trial — Evidence — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on its improper denial of plaintiff’s peremptory challenge of juror — Trial court failed to apply proper legal standard in denying plaintiff’s peremptory strike of juror where it failed to recognize the presumption that plaintiff was exercising her peremptory challenge in a nondiscriminatory manner and hold defendants to their burden of proving purposeful discrimination — Fact that juror was sole African American juror left on the panel is, standing alone, insufficient to override a genuine race-neutral challenge — Trial court erred in granting a new trial based on its determination that verdict finding one of the defendants 100% liable for the fatal accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence — Order shows that trial court improperly re-weighed the evidence and acted as a seventh juror in doing so — Trial court erred in permitting jury to hear evidence related to defendant’s driving history where not only was the evidence unduly prejudicial, but the citations bore no similarity to the circumstances at issue and had no relevance to defendant’s alleged negligence at the time of the accident — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion notwithstanding verdict which asserted that defendant should not be liable for the total amount of damages to co-defendant’s tractor-trailer — A new-trial order and order for judgment notwithstanding verdict are mutually inconsistent and may not be granted simultaneously unless granted on the express condition that the order granting the judgment notwithstanding verdict only becomes effective if the order granting new trial is reversed on appeal, which did not happen in this case
  • Workers’ compensation — Prosthetic devices — Limitation of actions — Claimant who had screws and rods inserted in her spine as a result of an injury occurring in 1990 — Judge of compensation claims erred in rejecting employer/carrier’s statute of limitations defense to claim for pain management and a replacement mechanical bed — While applicable 1989 version of workers’ compensation law contained an exemption from its statute of limitations to the right for remedial attention relating to the insertion or attachment of a prosthetic device, there is no evidence that either the prosthesis, or the surgery required to insert it, is causing the need for the requested benefits as opposed to the underlying condition that necessitated the prosthesis in the first place — Fact that claimant may have a prosthetic device is not, standing alone, sufficient to prevent statute of limitations from accruing

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