Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2D98-4115.

• Decision Date: 20 November 2002
• Docket Number: No. 2D98-4115.,2D98-4115.
• Citation: 833 So.2d 172
• Parties: Ruben FLORES, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

833 So.2d 172

Ruben FLORES, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 2D98-4115.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 20, 2002.

D. Russell Stahl, Tampa, for Appellant.

Butler Burnette Pappas, Christopher J. Nicholas, and Robert C. Weill, Tampa, for Appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

GREEN, Judge.

Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida and upon remand to this court, we resolve the remaining issue to determine whether Ruben Flores is entitled to a new trial. See Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 740 (Fla.2002) (holding that insured's fraud in connection with claim for PIP benefits did not void uninsured motorist (UM) coverage; provision allowing insurer to deny coverage "for any loss in connection with any material misrepresentation, fraud, or concealment of material facts, or if any material misrepresentation or omission was made on the application," was ambiguous and did not permit denial of UM coverage for unrelated fraud). We conclude that the introduction of evidence highlighting Ruben Flores's alleged fraud in the submission of personal injury protection (PIP) claims, in the context of an entire claim of fraud that the jury should not have considered when deciding the UM claim, requires a new trial. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

The operative facts in this appeal are outlined in the supreme court's opinion and our prior opinion in Flores v. Allstate Insurance Co., 772 So.2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In Flores, this court explained that the trial court permitted the jury to decide two issues: (1) whether Mr. Flores had committed fraud that would result in the voiding of his insurance coverage, and (2) the extent of Allstate's liability under the insurance policy if it was not void, particularly in light of Mr. Flores's failure to wear a seatbelt at the time of the accident. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of Allstate on both issues, Flores moved for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal from the judgment entered based upon the jury's verdict, Mr. Flores argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. Specifically, Mr. Flores argued (1) that any fraud by Mr. Flores in asserting a claim for PIP benefits would not void the coverage Allstate provided under the UM section of the insurance policy, and therefore this issue was not properly placed before the jury; and (2) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that Flores had submitted fraudulent bills in his claim for PIP benefits in respect to the other issues presented to the jury, particularly his failure to wear a seatbelt.

We initially held that the jury properly determined that fraud by Mr. Flores voided the UM coverage in his policy and that the trial court was correct in submitting to the jury the issue of his failure to wear his seatbelt. We certified to the Supreme Court of Florida as a matter of great public importance the question of whether an insured's fraud as to one part of a divisible insurance policy voids the entire policy. Id. at 7.

In Flores, 819 So.2d 740, the supreme court rephrased our certified question and quashed our opinion. The supreme court concluded that the specific provision in Flores's insurance policy addressing fraud was ambiguous. The court stated:

In this case, the fraud arose only in connection with a claim for PIP benefits and not in connection with the claim for UM coverage in which Allstate, as the UM carrier, stood in the shoes of the tortfeasor. We thus hold that this provision did not permit Allstate to deny UM coverage for unrelated fraud.

819 So.2d at 751. Thus, the supreme court effectively reversed the judgment entered to the extent it determined the insurance contract was void. However, the supreme court did not address whether the...