INSURANCE: LIABILITY INSURANCE: ESTOPPEL TO DENY COVERAGE: INSURED’S ALLEGATION THAT INSURER MADE STATEMENTS AND PERFORMED ACTIVITIES THAT LED INSURED TO BELIEVE THAT COVERAGE EXISTED FOR THIRD PARTY LIABILITY CLAIM, DESPITE INSURER’S KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS THAT WOULD HAVE PERMITTED IT TO DENY COVERAGE, STATED CAUSE OF ACTION FOR COVERAGE BY ESTOPPEL; APPEALS: BRIEFS: COURT CRITICIZES, BUT DOES NOT SANCTION, APPELLANT FOR MIS-CERTIFYING THAT INITIAL AND REPLY BRIEFS COMPLIED WITH FONT REQUIREMENTS OF FLA. R. APP. P. 9.210(2)

Case Decision Date: Reviewed by

Bishop v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D119 (Fla. 1st DCA January 6, 2015)

The appellate court reversed summary judgment for the insurer on a claim for coverage by estoppel. The insured alleged that the insurer made statement and performed activities that led her to believe that she had coverage for a … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

INSURANCE: PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: EXCLUSION FOR FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD FUNDS HELD FOR OTHERS APPLIED TO LAWYER/TITLE AGENT’S MISTAKE IN DISBURSING FUNDS HELD IN ESCROW BEFORE SATISFACTION OF CONDITIONS FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS

Case Decision Date: Reviewed by

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Llorente, ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D67 (Fla. 3d DCA December 24, 2014)

The insurance company denied coverage of a claim under a professional liability insurance policy based upon the insured’s premature release of escrowed funds. The policy covered the insured as both a lawyer and a title insurance … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

INSURANCE: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: PERSONAL INJURY COVERAGE: INSURANCE COMPANY HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND FOUR INSURED OFFICERS, WHO WERE SUED FOR DEFAMING A FIFTH INSURED OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES AS OFFICERS: INSURANCE COMPANY WITH A DUTY TO DEFEND ANY CLAIM HAS A DUTY TO DEFEND ALL CLAIMS: RULING ON DUTY TO INDEMNIFY WAS PREMATURE BECAUSE FURTHER FACTUAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH DISCOVERY OR TRIAL WAS NECESSARY

Case Decision Date: Reviewed by

Khatib v. Old Dominion Insurance Company, ___ So. 3d ___, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D2534 (Fla. 1st DCA December 5, 2014)

The appellate court reversed an order determining that a commercial general liability insurer did not have the duty to defend or indemnify four officers of the insured corporation, who were sued by a fifth officer for defaming him, … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

TORTS: WRONGFUL DEATH: WORKER’S COMPENSATION: INSURANCE: WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE: WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERS EMPLOYERS AGAINST LIABILITY UNDER THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION ACT: EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERS EMPLOYERS FOR LIABILITY TO EMPLOYEES WHEN WORKER’S COMPENSATION IMMUNITY DOES NOT EXIST: THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED EMPLOYEE HAD STANDING TO SUE THE EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR FAILING TO PAY THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S WRONGFUL DEATH: THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE EMPLOYEE’S LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE EMPLOYER’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE EMPLOYEE’S DEATH, AND THE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR ANY OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY A WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW: IN ADDITION, THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS RELEASED FROM LIABILITY TO PAY THE JUDGMENT BY A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CASE, WHICH PROVIDED THAT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS, THE ESTATE WAIVED ITS BENEFITS UNDER THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION ACT AND ELECTED ITS REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYER AND THE CARRIER AS TO THE COVERAGE PROVIDED TO THE EMPLOYER

Case Decision Date: Reviewed by

Morales v. Zenith Insurance Company, ___ So. 3d ___, 39 Fla. L. Weekly S721 (Fla. December 4, 2014)

After the employee was crushed to death by a palm tree during the course of his employment, his widow entered into a worker’s compensation settlement agreement with the employer and its liability insurance carrier. When the parties entered into the settlement agreement, … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

TORTS: MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE; CIVIL PROCEDURE: DISCOVERY: SANCTIONS: PERJURY; INSURANCE: INSURED’S FALSE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT TRIGGER FRAUD PROVISION UNDER LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY DID NOT RELATE TO THE INSURANCE COVERAGE: COURT DOES NOT DECIDE WHETHER EXCLUSION, IF APPLICABLE, WOULD PROVIDE COVERAGE DEFENSE (REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION STATUTE) OR DEFENSE OF NO COVERAGE (TO WHICH CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION STATUTE WAS INAPPLICABLE): INSURED COULD CONDITION ACCEPTANCE OF REPLACEMENT INSURANCE DEFENSE COUNSEL ON WITHDRAWAL OF INSURER’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS: INSURED DID NOT OWE DUTY TO COOPERATE AFTER INSURER ISSUED RESERVATION OF RIGHTS: INSURED COULD DISMISS APPEAL FROM SANCTIONS JUDGMENT AFTER ASSUMING CONTROL OF ITS DEFENSE: SANCTIONS WERE COVERED AS COSTS UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS PROVISION OF POLICY: PUBLIC POLICY DID NOT BAR COVERAGE FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST INSURED

Case Decision Date: Reviewed by

 GEICO General Insurance Company v. Rodriguez, ___ So. 3d ___, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1937 (Fla. 3d DCA September 10, 2014)

During his deposition in a motor vehicle negligence case, the defendant denied having visual impairments although he was legally blind.  As a result, the trial court imposed monetary sanctions against the defendant.  After the motion for sanctions was filed, … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...