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
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

June 19, 2014 by admin

Property insurance — Sinkhole claims — Neutral evaluation — Trial court improperly sustained insured’s objection to insurer’s notice of stay of breach of contract litigation pending neutral evaluation of sinkhole claim — Insurer did not waive right to neutral evaluation by participating in litigation

39 Fla. L. Weekly D1257a


Insurance — Sinkhole claims — Neutral evaluation — Trial
court improperly sustained insured’s objection to insurer’s notice of stay of
breach of contract litigation pending neutral evaluation of sinkhole claim —
Insurer did not waive right to neutral evaluation by participating in
litigation

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Florida government entity,
Petitioner, v. DONNA KING, Respondent. 2nd District. Case No. 2D13-5734. Opinion
filed June 13, 2014. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for
Pasco County; Stanley R. Mills, Judge. Counsel: Kara Berard Rockenbach of Methe
& Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; and Michael Ruel of Galloway, Johnson,
Tompkins, Burr & Smith, PLC, Tampa, for Petitioner. Raymond T. Elligett, Jr.
of Buell & Elligett, P.A., Tampa; and Andrew M. Bragg and Sarah R. Kinnett
of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent.
(BLACK, Judge.) Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”) seeks
certiorari review of the trial court’s order sustaining Donna King’s objection
to Citizen’s notice of stay pursuant to section 627.7074(10), Florida Statutes
(2013), in the underlying breach of contract action brought by Ms. King against
Citizens.
Ms. King filed her lawsuit against Citizens for breach of contract and
damages for sinkhole losses to her property, which Citizens insured and for
which Ms. King had a sinkhole policy. Prior to trial, Citizens invoked the
statutory neutral evaluation process and filed a notice of stay with the trial
court pursuant to section 627.7074(10). Ms. King filed an objection to the
notice of stay, arguing that Citizens had waived its right to neutral evaluation
by participating in litigation of the case in circuit court. She also contended
that Citizens failed to comply with the neutral evaluation statute when it did
not provide Ms. King with the statutorily mandated consumer information pamphlet
notifying Ms. King of her right to participate in the neutral evaluation
process. See § 627.7074(3). The trial court sustained Ms. King’s
objection and found that Citizens “waived its right to neutral evaluation by
actively participating in litigation.” The order did not address the argument
that Citizens failed to comply with statutory and contractual notice
requirements.1
As we did in Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Trapeo, 136 So. 3d
670, 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), to the extent the order under review prohibits
Citizens from invoking the neutral evaluation process, we grant the petition and
quash the order. See also Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Hanos, 39
Fla. L. Weekly D577 (Fla. 2d DCA March 19, 2014); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.
v. Finley
, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D248 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 31, 2014). Additionally,
we treat the remaining portion of Citizens’ petition, challenging the denial of
the automatic stay, as a petition for writ of mandamus and grant the petition.
The trial court is directed to stay the underlying proceedings pending
completion of neutral evaluation, as required by section 627.7074(10).
See Trapeo, 136 So. 3d at 680; Finley, 39 Fla. L. Weekly
D248; Hanos, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D577.
Certiorari petition granted; order quashed; mandamus petition granted with
directions. (CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.)
__________________
1The appendix provided by Citizens includes
a letter from 2011 in which Citizens accepted liability for the damage and
attached the required pamphlet on neutral evaluation. It is unclear from the
appendix, however, whether that document is included in the record below.
Moreover, although the failure to notify argument was raised in the trial court
and in the response brief here, the notification issue was not the basis for the
trial court’s ruling and is therefore not before this court.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

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 © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982