49 Fla. L. Weekly D86a ANA DEL CARPIO, Appellant, v. WESTERN BEEF OF FLORIDA, LLC, and WESTERN BEEF RETAIL, INC., Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2022-3434. January 3, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Luis Delgado, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018CA008129XXXXMB. Counsel: Ramon Rubio of Rubio Law […]
Articles
Insurance — Homeowners — Bad faith — Coverage defense — Insurer discovering that claim was excluded under policy when investigating bad faith claim — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer based on determination that claim was not actually covered under the policy, despite fact that insurer had paid insured her full policy limit after appraisal — Argument that no liability exists because no coverage exists could have been raised in prior suit seeking appointment of an umpire — Liability determination by payment of policy limits is binding as a condition precedent to prosecute a first-party bad faith action — If the statutory obligation of the insurer to avoid a bad faith claim is to timely evaluate and pay benefits owed under the insurance policy, then the duty to evaluate the claim necessarily includes a duty to investigate the claim properly and promptly, including the cause of injury to the property
49 Fla. L. Weekly D89a SUSAN CINGARI, Appellant, v. FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2022-2376. January 3, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Gerard Joseph Curley, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-CA-008364. Counsel: William D. Mueller, Elliot B. Kula, and W. Aaron Daniel […]
Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claims — Coverage — Evidence — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of insurer’s engineer, who was called to testify about settlement of the home’s foundation, by preventing insured from soliciting engineer’s opinion about sinkhole activity at the home — Insured’s attempt to cross-examine engineer about sinkhole activity exceeded scope of direct examination because engineer was never asked about sinkhole activity — Furthermore, engineer had no basis upon which to opine about sinkhole activity — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying insured’s request to offer deposition testimony of engineer who originally investigated loss for insurer as rebuttal evidence — Although insured wanted to argue that insurer’s own expert’s conclusions supported insured’s position, such evidence would have been cumulative given insured’s own expert testimony
49 Fla. L. Weekly D104a SANDRA PEREZ CARBONELL, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D22-495. January 5, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emily A. Peacock, Judge. Counsel: Jeremy D. Bailie of Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Edgardo Ferreyra and Daniel S. Weinger […]
Contracts — Settlement agreement — Enforcement — Damages — Jurisdiction — Motion to enforce settlement agreement alleging that filing suit against defendant violated release provision of parties’ settlement agreement — Trial court lacked jurisdiction to award damages requested in motion to enforce settlement agreement where settlement agreement was silent with respect to damages due for the breach of the release provision of the agreement — Defendant essentially filed an action seeking general damages which was outside of the continuing jurisdiction of the trial court to adjudicate — Remedy for plaintiff’s alleged breach is to file a separate suit for breach of settlement agreement rather than a motion to enforce
49 Fla. L. Weekly D108c FLEETWING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. DAVID RICKETTS, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-948. L.T. Case No. 2016CA-000137. January 5, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Steven L. Selph & James A. Yancey, Judges. Counsel: Victor L. Chapman, of Barrett, Chapman & Ruta, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. James C. […]
Insurance — Homeowners — Bad faith — Coverage defense — Insurer discovering that claim was excluded under policy when investigating bad faith claim — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer based on determination that claim was not actually covered under the policy, despite fact that insurer had paid insured her full policy limit after appraisal — Argument that no liability exists because no coverage exists could have been raised in prior suit seeking appointment of an umpire — Liability determination by payment of policy limits is binding as a condition precedent to prosecute a first-party bad faith action — If the statutory obligation of the insurer to avoid a bad faith claim is to timely evaluate and pay benefits owed under the insurance policy, then the duty to evaluate the claim necessarily includes a duty to investigate the claim properly and promptly, including the cause of injury to the property
49 Fla. L. Weekly D89a SUSAN CINGARI, Appellant, v. FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2022-2376. January 3, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Gerard Joseph Curley, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-CA-008364. Counsel: William D. Mueller, Elliot B. Kula, and W. Aaron Daniel […]