insurance claim in Florida

2022Id. at 617 .

2022Id. at 617 .

2021Thus, the insureds were not entitled to attorney’s fees, as the action “was merely a preemptive lawsuit intended to obtain attorneys’ fees for the usual efforts in negotiating an insurance claim.” Id. at 312 (quoting Hill, 35 So. 3d at 960 ).

2018The Hill court questioned “whether this lawsuit was filed to force [the insurer] to conduct an appraisal or whether it was merely a preemptive lawsuit intended to obtain attorneys’ fees for the usual efforts in negotiating an insurance claim.” 35 So. 3d at 960 .

2018However, the Florida Supreme Court has explained that "an agreement that is violative of a provision of a constitution or a valid statute, or an agreement which cannot be performed without violating such a constitutional or statutory provision, is illegal and void." Local No. 234 of United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. of U.S. & Canada v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc. , 66 So.2d 818 , 821 (Fla. 1953), cited in Palm Bay Towers Corp. v. Brooks , 466 So.2d 1071 , 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (en banc).

2018However, the Florida Supreme Court has explained that "an agreement that is violative of a provision of a constitution or a valid statute, or an agreement which cannot be performed without violating such a constitutional or statutory provision, is illegal and void." Local No. 234 of United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. of U.S. & Canada v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc. , 66 So.2d 818 , 821 (Fla. 1953), cited in Palm Bay Towers Corp. v. Brooks , 466 So.2d 1071 , 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (en banc).

2018However, the Florida Supreme Court has explained that "an agreement that is violative of a provision of a constitution or a valid statute, or an agreement which cannot be performed without violating such a constitutional or statutory provision, is illegal and void." Local No. 234 of United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. of U.S. & Canada v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc. , 66 So.2d 818 , 821 (Fla. 1953), cited in Palm Bay Towers Corp. v. Brooks , 466 So.2d 1071 , 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (en banc).

2018However, the Florida Supreme Court has explained that "an agreement that is violative of a provision of a constitution or a valid statute, or an agreement which cannot be performed without violating such a constitutional or statutory provision, is illegal and void." Local No. 234 of United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. of U.S. & Canada v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc. , 66 So.2d 818 , 821 (Fla. 1953), cited in Palm Bay Towers Corp. v. Brooks , 466 So.2d 1071 , 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (en banc).

2015The facts are nearly identical to those in Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Co., 164 So.3d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

2015The facts are nearly identical to those in Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Co., 164 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

2002The Taylor court had taken the position that in a statutory first party bad faith claim the entire insurance claim file was discoverable notwithstanding its work product character because the claim file was "virtually the only source of information on [the bad faith conduct] questions." 525 So.2d at 909 .

1989Co. v. Taylor, 525 So.2d 908 , 910 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), citing Shupack and Maryland Am.

1995Co. v. Lovell, 530 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), one of our primary bases for so holding was that such a failure to abate would otherwise result in irreparable harm to the defendant/insurer, namely that the latter would necessarily be required in this joint action to disclose in discovery a vital item solely on the bad faith claim which it would not otherwise be required to disclose on the breach of the insurance contract claim, to wit: the insurance claim file.

1989Co. v. Lovell, 530 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); one of our primary bases for so holding was that such a failure to abate would otherwise result in irreparable harm to the defendant/insurer, namely, that the latter would necessarily be required in this joint action to disclose in discovery a vital item solely on the bad-faith claim which it would not otherwise be required to disclose on the breach of the insurance contract claim, to wit: the insurance claim file.

1993That argument was rejected, and the exclusionary provision was held valid and operable to bar the insurance claim against the decedent husband’s estate. 583 So.2d at 1021 .

1993That argument was rejected, and the exclusionary provision was held valid and operable to bar the insurance claim against the decedent husband's estate. 583 So.2d at 1021 .

1988See Longo; Kooser v. Kooser, 506 So.2d 81, 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). [3] As this court said in Sobelman II, any insurance requirement under section 61.08(3) "should be limited in such a manner that the receiving spouse will receive only what may reasonably be necessary to protect arrearages in alimony so that the actual effect of the insurance requirement is not to provide post mortem alimony." 516 So.2d at 9 .

1988In Sobelman II the court held that the spouse seeking to have the awards protected by an insurance policy as provided by section 61.08(3), must establish the necessity (or a need) for security, and further that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy "should be limited in such manner that the receiving spouse will receive only what may reasonably be necessary to protect arrearages in alimony so that the actual effect of the insurance requirement is not to provide post mortem alimony." 516 So.2d at 9 .

2022Fla. 1986), the court held that, as to certain assignees, a judgment creditor’s garnishment claim against an insurance company “must be dismissed because, at the time of service of the garnishment writ, [the debtor] had already transferred all his interest in the insurance claim to these [assignees]” and thus the insurance company “did not possess any property of [the debtor] that could be garnished.” Likewise, in Jackson, the court held that “an effective equitable assignment of the insurance proceeds was consummated prior to the attempted garnishment,” and thus the assignee was entitled to t

2020We reached the same conclusion in Sterling v. City of West Palm Beach, 595 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), where it was argued in an insurance claim that the insured had admitted the sustained losses were caused by non-covered water damage when she failed to respond to the insurance company’s request for admissions.

2020Id. at 285 .

2018Id.

2018Id. at 983 .

2017On a motion for summary, judgment on the insurance claim, the Fourth District Court of Appeal noted that the trial court, in “a curious order ... proceeded to rule that ‘from the date of this Order hence, [the insurer] shall assume the defense of this matter.” Id. (emphasis added).

2015For the reasons stated in my concurrence on rehearing in Solano v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co., 155 So.3d 367, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), I conclude that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Curran, 135 So.3d 1071 (Fla.2014), effectively rejects the analysis of Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Insurance Co., 660 So.2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), that failure to submit to an examination under oath after an insurance claim is made, constitutes a breach of a condition precedent in the policy.

2015For the reasons stated in my concurrence on rehearing in Solano v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co., 155 So. 3d 367, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), I conclude that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Curran, 135 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 2014), effectively rejects the analysis of Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Insurance Co., 660 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), that failure to submit to an examination under oath after an insurance claim is made, constitutes a breach of a condition precedent in the policy.