Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, 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 Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

April 28, 2022 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Condominiums — Hurricane damage — Appraisal — Trial court erred in compelling appraisal of insured’s supplemental claim for window and door damage where, although insurer paid insured’s initial roof claim, insurer denied coverage for supplemental claim

47 Fla. L. Weekly D938a

HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. FAIRWAY OAKS, INC., Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D21-793. April 22, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Hugh D. Hayes, Judge. Counsel: David A. Noel and Kara Rockenbach Link of Link & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; and Jeffrey A. Rubinton and Veronica Dossat of Rubinton & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Sanjay Kurian and Benjamin T. Johnson of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

(LUCAS, Judge.) Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Heritage) appeals the circuit court’s order compelling it to participate in an appraisal under its insurance policy with Fairway Oaks, Inc. (Fairway Oaks), a condominium association. Because the facts and arguments in this appeal essentially mirror what we recently addressed in Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Veranda I at Heritage Links Ass’n, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D513 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 25, 2022), we reverse the order below. Like the condominium association in Veranda, Fairway Oaks submitted a claim to its insurer, Heritage, due to roof damage sustained from Hurricane Irma. Like in Veranda, Fairway Oaks later submitted a supplemental claim for window and door damages it claimed had also been caused by the hurricane.1 And, like in Veranda, Heritage eventually paid the roof claim but denied coverage as to the supplemental claim.

The circuit court granted Fairway Oaks’ motion to compel appraisal, and Heritage filed this timely appeal.

In Veranda, 47 Fla. L. Weekly at D514, we concluded that

[b]ecause Veranda’s claim for windows and doors was a supplemental claim for coverage, [American Coastal Insurance Co. v. Ironwood, Inc., 330 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021),] instructs that we must consider that claim separately from the initial roof claim that had been fully adjusted. And since Heritage wholly denied coverage for that supplemental claim, [Johnson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 828 So. 2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 2002),] and its progeny precluded the trial court from referring it to appraisal.

The same result obtains here. We therefore reverse the order compelling appraisal of Fairway Oaks’ supplemental claim and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded. (BLACK and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.)

__________________

1The pertinent policy language we are asked to construe is identical to the language that was at issue in Veranda.* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — All-risk policy — Coverage — Cracking damage to home caused by blasting vibrations from nearby rock quarry — Exclusions — Earth or soil movement — Wear and tear, marking, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion — Concurrent causes — Trial court did not err in denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict based on policy’s exclusion of coverage for earth sinking, rising, or shifting or soil movement resulting from blasting — Insurer’s position was based upon mischaracterization of testimony by insureds’ expert, who was steadfast in his opinion that none of the damage to home resulted from soil or earth movement, but was instead the result of shock waves from blasting that caused the house to shake — Based upon competing expert testimony, jury could have reasonably concluded that it was shock waves, not soil or earth movement, that caused damage — Jury instructions — Covered and excluded perils — Concurrent cause doctrine — Trial court did not err by instructing jury that land shock waves from blasting in combination with wear and tear, marring, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion was not excluded under policy — Although policy’s earth movement exclusion contained an explicit anti-concurrent cause provision, this provision would have come into play only if jury had first determined that one of the causes of damage was earth movement — Judgment in favor of insureds affirmed
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Work product — Claims files — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by compelling insurer to produce documents from its claims and underwriting files — Documents in claims and underwriting files are not automatically work product — Insurer’s assertion of work-product privilege was overly broad, and insurer did not argue or prove that the requested documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation
  • Wrongful death — Medical malpractice — Vicarious liability — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Allegation that defendant, through its president, committed acts of intentional misconduct or gross negligence by assigning a nurse practitioner to provide after-hours care to a patient with highly complex problems that were beyond nurse practitioner’s permissible scope of practice — Trial court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to assert claim for punitive damages — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on intentional conduct where evidence was insufficient to show that defendant’s president either knew or otherwise intended for nurse practitioner to independently order medical treatment for patient outside the scope of nurse practitioner’s practice without consulting president — Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that defendant’s president condoned or ratified nurse practitioner’s independent treatment with actual knowledge of a high probability that doing so would result in additional harm or death to patient — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on gross negligence where facts of case did not show that defendant, through its president or nurse practitioner, evinced a reckless or conscious disregard of or indifference to human life
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant

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 © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982