Insurance law casesThese are the summaries of Florida appellate court decisions concerning insurance law. They are broken down into the following categories: Agents and Brokers, Applications and claims, Appraisals, Attorneys, attorneys' fees and costs, Awards,damages and assignments of benefits, Bad faith, failure to procure and negligence, Cancellations and nonrenewals, Collateral sources and setoffs, Commercial liability and all risk insurance, Credit, disability, health and life insurance, Discovery, Duty to defend, Errors and omissions and malpractice insurance, Estoppel, Health Maintenance Organizations, Homeowners and property damage insurance, Immunities and privileges, Insurable interests, Motor vehicle insurance, Notices, Personal injury protection, Premiums and rate increases, Receivorships, Releases and settlement agreements, Statute of limitations.
Trial court erred in finding maritime insurer was not entitled to arbitration because Florida's "state laws regulating the business of insurance have a preemptive effect only as to insurance contracts within the United States, and not to international insurance contracts." Lloyds Underwriters v. Netterstrom, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1437 (Fla. 1st DCA July 16, 2009). In homeowners' insurance suit, trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest from date of loss instead of from the date payment became due under the policy. Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1422 (Fla. 3d DCA July 15, 2009). AGENTS AND BROKERS The act of accepting insurance premiums by an insurance broker, as opposed to an insurance agent, is not binding on the insurer. Amstar Insurance Co. v. Cadet, 862 So. 2d 736, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2340 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 10, 2003). Insurance broker was not the apparent agent of insurer by virtue of its accepting premium payments on behalf of finance company. Amstar Insurance Co. v. Cadet, 862 So. 2d 736, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2340 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 10, 2003).
APPLICATIONS AND CLAIMS Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer because of insured's stating there was no one else with him when he filed a claim where there was a dispute as to which insurance policy applied, one which would void the policy if there were any misrepresentation while filing a claim and the other only allowed insurer to void policy if there was a misrepresentation on the application. Ricardo v. United Automobile Insurance Company, 869 So. 2d 1256, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D921 (Fla. 3d DCA April 14, 2004). The State of Florida's Self Insured Group Insurance Plan's provisions excluding coverage for intentionally self-inflicted injuries do not unconstitutionally discriminate against the mentally ill. Tiedemann v. Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, 862 So. 2d 845, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2850 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec.10, 2003). Where insured offers to settle bodily injury claim and property damage claim for specific amounts, insured cannot accept one without accepting the other. Sorocka v. Severe, 858 So. 2d 388, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2519 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 5, 2003). In denying a motion for rehearing, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, certified the following question of great public importance: “Can the estoppel theory approved in Doe v. Allstate Insurance Co., 653 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1995), be applied to conduct arising out of the insurer’s investigation of a claim before the claimant has filed a lawsuit?” Florida Municipal Ins. Trust v.
Trial court erred in dismissing an administrator’s claims against two reinsurers for reimbursement of claims paid but not reimbursed by the insurer as the complaint properly alleged all the elements of equitable estoppel. Royal Administration, Inc. v. Hannover Life Reassurance Co. of America, 848 So. 2d 1244, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1565 (Fla. 3d DCA July 9, 2003). Where an insured provided some but not all of the documents requested by the insurer, the question of whether insured materially breached the policy’s cooperation clause is one for the jury, not the judge. Schnagel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 843 So. 2d 1037, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1139 (Fla. 4th DCA May 7, 2003). Trial court erred in allowing insurer to introduce into evidence fact that insured six years after the accident altered the accident report to falsely explain her absence from work as it was not relevant to the issue being tried and served only to impeach the insured’s credibility. Tucker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 842 So. 2d 1029, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1031 ( Fla. 2d DCA April 23, 2003). Trial court erred in granting summary judgment for insurer on grounds of misrepresentations in application where insured averred that insurer's agent filled out application and simply presented it to him for signature. Fresh Supermarket Foods, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 829 So. 2d 1000, 27 Fla. L. We
|