Matthew Scarborough

Appeals

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: June 1, 2018
Note: This article is part of an ongoing series discussing recent appellate decisions of interest. From Florida’s Supreme Court Ochoa v. Koppel: A commonly encountered tactic in response to service of a proposal for settlement is to a motion for extension of time prior to expiration of 30 day acceptance window.  The argument presented being that until the motion for extension of…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: January 28, 2013
In a recent decision named Alpine Fresh, the third district court of appeal determined a release of the insurance company and its "agents" signed in the underlying litigation was also a release of the independent insurance agent who provided the policy to the insured. The insurance agents in this case were “general lines agents,” as defined in section 626.015(5)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes (2010),…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: November 25, 2012
In Clarke v. State Farm, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D2540, 4th DCA, October 31, 2012, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's order granting State Farm's  motion for summary judgment on a coverage action.  State Farm argued its insuring agreement which defined bodily injury to exclude: "any of the following which are communicable: disease, bacteria, parasite, virus, or other…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: November 20, 2012
The Fourth DCA in Slominski v. Citizens Insurance, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D2339, October 3, 2012 determined a summary judgment for the insurer was proper when they established "prejudice".  The insured filed a claim three and one half years post Hurricane Wilma.  Citizens denied the claim asserting the damages could not be related to the Hurricane and the policy required "prompt…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: January 26, 2011
Apparently there are conflicting authorities as to when an IME permits an insurer to cut-off PIP benefits.  According to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, the question as to when an IME serves to cut-off an insurer’s obligation to pay PIP benefits is a question of fact for the jury.  United vs. Asclepius Medical, Inc. (2010).  In United vs. Asclepius Medical, Inc.,…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: January 4, 2011
In Citizens vs. European Wood Craft, the 4th District Court of Appeal held the trial court erred in ruling.  An insured was not placed on notice of the limitations of the insurance agent.  In this case, the insured did not receive page two of the application, which was the page disclosing the Notice.  According to the 4th District Court of…Read More