Error to Enter Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Where Question of Sudden Lane Change
       In this First District case, the Court considered whether the decedent driver of a vehicle who struck the rear of the Defendant's tow truck was subject to the presumption of negligence in Florida on the part of the rear driver in a rear-end collision.
       The Court found that, although the driver of the car which struck the rear of the tow truck died in the accident, there was a sufficient question of fact regarding whether the actions of the lead driver fit into one of the three established general categories which have been found to effectively rebut the presumption of negligence in these accidents:
1.   An abrupt and arbitrary stop in a place where it   could not reasonably be expected, or an unexpected change of lanes;
2.   A mechanical failure, such as sudden brake failure, that causes the rear driver to collide with the lead driver; and
3.   The lead vehicle is illegally and, therefore, unexpectedly stopped.
       The Court found in this matter that since there was a question as to whether the tow truck had suddenly changed lanes and reduced its speed, it was inappropriate to enter summary judgment in favor of the tow truck.
 
Itiat v. Foskey, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D313 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2/5/10).

Homeowners:  Order for Appraisal Premature Where Coverage Dispute Remained
       The Fourth District Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion stating that where a coverage issue remains, specifically, whether or not the claim was a "supplemental claim to a prior claim" an order for appraisals was not supported.  In this case, the homeowners filed a claim following damage sustained in Hurricane Wilma, were paid on the claim and the file was closed.  Two years later, the homeowners submitted a "supplemental" claim for damages "discovered" by a public adjuster.

        The carrier requested a sworn proof of loss, as well as examinations under oath in connection with the new claim.
       The trial court in this case ordered the parties to obtain appraisals, pursuant to the policy provisions, without allowing evidence to be presented regarding the dispute as to coverage or regarding the failure to provide sworn proof of loss and participate in examinations under oath.
       The Fourth DCA held that it was premature to order parties to obtain an appraisal, inasmuch as there were disputes regarding coverage and compliance with the policy provisions by the insured.