46 Fla. L. Weekly D778a SIERRA AUTO CENTER, INC., et al., Appellants, v. GRANADA INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D19-2388. L.T. Case No. 18-17283. April 7, 2021. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Wolfson Law Firm, LLP, and Jonah M. Wolfson, for […]
Articles
Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Assignees — No error in finding that appraisal provision of insured’s homeowner’s policy applied to insured’s assignee and granting insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Policy did not classify appraisal as a duty of the insured — Assignee received an assignment that entitled it to receipt of payment from insurer, and concomitant with that right was its duty to comply with the conditions of the contract that afforded it payment
46 Fla. L. Weekly D760h WEBB ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a/a/o JOHN LEFEVRE and LISA LEFEVRE, Appellant, v. FEDNAT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D20-1881. April 7, 2021. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Hugh D. Hayes, Judge. Counsel: Alex Finch of Fromang & […]
Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Post-loss obligations — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer after finding that insureds had forfeited their policy coverage for failure to provide a sworn proof of loss — Policy did not eliminate duty of insured to provide sworn proof of loss where insurer opted to repair — However, because insureds complied to some extent with policy requirements, and policy required insurer to prove it was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to provide sworn proof of loss, material issues of fact remain
46 Fla. L. Weekly D715a ENRIQUE ARGUELLO and YAHOSKA ARGUELLO, Appellants, v. PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D20-69. March 31, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-19-003812 (09). Counsel: Steven E. Gurian of Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez, & […]
Insurance — Homeowners — Watercraft exclusion — No error in determining that watercraft exclusion in the insureds’ homeowners’ insurance policy precluded coverage for injuries sustained by a third party in a boating accident that occurred when the insured son, who had permission to use the boat from the insured father, allowed another third party to pilot the boat while intoxicated — The only applicable exception to the watercraft exclusion unambiguously states that the watercraft exclusion does not apply if the outboard engine or motor is not owned by an insured, and the boat and engine in this case were owned by the insured father — Severability clause, which provides that the policy “applies separately to each insured,” did not render watercraft exclusion ambiguous — Exceptions to the watercraft exclusion are not dependent on the insured who seeks coverage, but on the nature of the watercraft at issue
46 Fla. L. Weekly D718a ARTHUR AIELLO, MICHELLE AIELLO, and ARTHUR JOSEPH AIELLO, Appellants, v. ASI PREFERRED CORP., CARLYN FAGARASS, and RUSSELL BOURNE, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D20-1078. March 31, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Barbara W. Bronis, Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2019-CA-000443AXXXHC. Counsel: Jane […]
Workers’ compensation — Temporary partial disability — Retroactive benefits — Factual basis — Judge of compensation claims’s award of retroactive TPD benefits is reversed in part because JCC’s factual basis was ambiguous — Although JCC stated that she accepted expert medical opinion of claimant’s independent medical examiner that claimant was restricted to sedentary work, IME’s opinion was not competent, substantial evidence of medical restrictions for claimant’s compensable injuries because IME never addressed any restriction attributable solely to the compensable injuries — While DWC-25 form identifies work restrictions limited to compensable injuries and may have provided competent, substantial evidence to support TPD award, the language of the order calls into doubt whether the JCC relied on the form — Even assuming JCC did rely on DWC-25, the report alone does not show that assigned work restrictions are retroactive — Considering conflicting medical evidence on whether claimant has continuously been subject to work restrictions for compensable injuries as well as JCC’s apparent reliance on restrictions for non-compensable injuries, court is reluctant to draw inferences that were never acknowledged by JCC — Remanded for further clarification
46 Fla. L. Weekly D740a INTAL CONSTRUCTION, INC./ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, Appellants, v. MOISES MANCERA, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-1766. March 31, 2021. On appeal from an order of the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. Iliana Forte, Judge. Date of Accident: December 11, 2018. Counsel: Rosalind Milian of MKRS Law, P.L., Coral Gables, […]