Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Ace Property and Casualty Insurance Co., et al. United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division. Case No: 8:22-cv-2569-CEH-AEP
Anytime Restoration Services of Florida, Inc., v. Citizens Property Ins., Corp., Case No. 3D23-1258 (U.S. Middle District Court of Florida, February 26, 2025 – Judge J. Gordo)
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Brilus, et al., Case No. 4D2023-2878 (Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, Feb 19, 2025 – Judge Michael A. Robinson)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., et al, v. At Home Auto Glass LLC., et al, Case No. 8:21-CV-239-TPB-AEP(Middle District Court of Florida , Feb 6, 2025 – Judge Tom Barber)
(The court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order on cross-motions for summary judgment, wherein plaintiff ceased payments to defendant for “unlawful solicitation and contracting with State Farm’s insureds”; the court finding in favor of defendant for having provided “value in exchange for the benefit received.”)
209 West Olympia, LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co., Case No. 2:24-CV-237-JLB-KCD(Middle District Court of Florida, Feb 3, 2025 – Judge Kyle C. Dudek)
(The court has denied plaintiff’s motion for a clerk’s default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) when defendant has appeared in court to defend by enforcing alleged settlement agreement, finding that such a default is viewed unfavorably by the courts; that is, “the rule does not contemplate the entry of default only upon a defendant’s failure to answer but rather upon a defendant’s failure to respond or defend against the allegations in complaint.”)
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Robert A. Lee, ASCO Services, Inc., et al, Case No. 6D2023-2377(Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida, Feb 7, 2025 – Judge Keith R. Kyle)
(Court reversed and remanded final judgment for defendant in response plaintiff’s appeal to consider only benefits given up to the date of settlement, finding that Liberty Mutual was entitled to full reimbursement from defendant under Florida Statutes 440.39(3)(a), which does not specify timing and clauses that are affected by agreed settlement dates but that “the carrier shall recover a percentage of what it has paid”; that is, “the statute requires Liberty Mutual’s pro rata share to be determined based on the full amount of “benefits paid or to be paid.”)
Hawk v. Hartford Insurance Co. Case No. 2:24-cv-823-JES-NPM(Middle District Court of Florida Jan 29, 2025 Judge-John E. Steele
(granting Hartford’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for complaint’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and denied Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that, “The Court cannot say at this point that amendment would necessarily be futile” and dismissed the case without prejudice; that is, “the Court may decide the jurisdictional and the substantive aspects of the motion together.”)