Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioners sought review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Geico Indemnity Co. v. Shazier on the basis that it conflicted with the decisions of the court in Susco Car Rental System of Florida v. Leonard and Roth v. Old Republic Insurance Co. In Shazier, the district court resolved a question regarding an insurer's duty to defend and indemnify its insured in favor of the insurer. In doing so, the First District relied on a very constricted definition of "consent" and employed an unauthorized driver provision in contradiction of the court's clear precedent to the contrary under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine to defeat coverage. Accordingly, the court quashed the First District's decision and directed that judgment be entered in favor of the insureds and injured parties. View "Chandler, etc., et al., v. Geico Indemnity Co. et al.; Steele v. Geico Indemnity Co. et al." on Justia Law

State Farm petitioned for review of the Third District's determination that the household exclusion in its policy issued to respondents was ambiguous and therefore could not be enforced to eliminate coverage for bodily injuries suffered by members of the household of a permissive-driver insured. The court held that the plain language of the household exclusion precluded coverage for bodily injuries suffered by members of the household of a permissive-driver insured, such as the parents in this case. Therefore, the court quashed the Third District's decision, approved Linehan v. Alkhabbaz, and remanded for further proceedings. View "State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose from certain hurricane damage claims made by respondent under a 2004 insurance policy issued by respondent's original insurer. When the original insurer became insolvent, the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) then became obligated to respond to certain claims made under that insurance policy. At issue was the proper test to be utilized by a court when determining whether a statute could be applied retroactively, in this case to a contract of insurance. The court held that the court's precedents both before and after the Fourth District's decision required the court to engage in a two-pronged inquiry to determine if the 2005 amendments to section 627.7016, Fla. Stat., were to be applied retroactively. Thus, the Fourth District misapplied this precedent when it omitted the first inquiry into whether the Legislature clearly expressed an intent that the statute be applied retroactively and moved directly to the second inquiry, whether retroactive application would be constitutional. For this reason, and because there was no clear evidence of legislative intent for retroactivity, the court quashed the decision of the Fourth District to the extent it was inconsistent with the opinion and remanded for further proceedings. View "Florida Ins. Guar. Assoc., Inc. v. Devon Neighborhood Assoc., Inc." on Justia Law

Respondent Enterprise Leasing Company leased a motor vehicle to Elizabeth Price for less than a year. Her son crashed the leased vehicle into a vehicle owned by Petitioner Rafael Vargas. Vargas filed suit against Price and Enterprise. The only count of the complaint directed at Enterprise claimed that the company was vicariously liable as the owner of the vehicle, pursuant to state law section 324.021(9)(b)2. Vargas did not contend that Enterprise was negligent, that its lease to Price was improper, or that it was in any way at fault for the accident. Enterprise filed an Answer and affirmative defenses, asserting that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §30106, or the "Graves Amendment," it had no liability. The circuit court granted Enterprise's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Graves Amendment preempted state law, holding that the state law was a vicarious liability provision and not a financial responsibility one. The court entered a final judgment consistent with Enterprise's consent to judgment, and Vargas appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision and held one issue for review by the Supreme Court: whether the Graves Amendment as enacted by Congress preempted state law involving short term leases of motor vehicles. Florida had eliminated vicarious liability for a certain category of owner/lessors; Congress, through the Graves Amendment, sought to eliminate vicarious liability for that category of owners/lessors in which the state law left exposed to liability. On analysis, the Supreme Court found that the savings clause of the Graves Amendment does not supersede state laws that impose financial responsibility on the owner of a vehicle or that impose liability on businesses who rent or lease vehicles for failure to meet financial responsibility requirements under state law, and affirmed the decision of the circuit court.