47 Fla. L. Weekly D1084b IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP, and TERRENCE P. COLLINGSWORTH, Individually and as Agent of CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-784. May 18, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Keathan B. Frink, Judge; L.T. Case […]
Articles
Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Declaratory judgment — Dismissal — With prejudice — Action stemming from insurer’s denial of claim for damage allegedly caused by hurricane based on insurer’s determination that physical loss was caused by “wear and tear,” “marring” or “deterioration” and was thus excluded under policy — Error to dismiss second amended complaint with prejudice on bases that complaint failed to state a cause of action for declaratory relief, there was no ambiguous policy language requiring construction, and that insureds had an adequate remedy at law — Insureds satisfied the pleading requirements necessary to seek declaratory relief — Declaratory relief is not contingent on existence of purportedly ambiguous policy language — Declaratory relief is available to resolve questions concerning the application of unambiguous policy provisions to a disputed set of facts — Additionally, the existence of another adequate remedy at law does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1079a LUZ CINTRON and AGUSTINE CINTRON, Appellants, v. EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D21-1334. May 18, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emmett L. Battles, Judge. Counsel: William D. Mueller, Elliot B. Kula, and W. Aaron Daniel, of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami; and Andres […]
Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C1084a SA PALM BEACH, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDSLONDON KNOWN AS SYNDICATES CNP 4444, AFB 2623, AFB 623, BRT, 2987, BRT 2988, NEO 2468, SAM 727, AXS1686, XIS H4202, QBE 1886, DUW 1729, WBC 5886, […]
Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1044a COMMODORE, INC. d/b/a GREENSTREET CAFÉ, INC., Appellant, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, etc., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-0671. L.T. Case No. 20-10334. May 11, 2022. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A. Hanzman, Judge. Counsel: Reed Smith LLP and R. Hugh Lumpkin […]
Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
47 Fla. L. Weekly D998a KELLIANNE NASO, as personal representative of the Estate of Allan Dwoskin, Appellant, v. RONALD HALL and G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-1521. May 4, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19024776. […]