Great American Insurance Co. of New York v. 2000 Island Boulevard Condominium Ass'n
153 So. 3d 384
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- 2000 Island Boulevard Condominium Association sued Great American Insurance (Great American) alleging falling concrete and slab deflection in a parking garage; dispute centers on whether a "Difference in Conditions" policy covers the damage.
- Case assigned to Miami‑Dade Circuit Judge David C. Miller; Great American answered and raised affirmative defenses including policy exclusions and lack of required information and asserted work‑product protection for a pre‑litigation engineering consultant.
- On an expedited schedule and before any depositions or summary judgment, the trial judge heard motions on October 15 and October 22, 2014, and made multiple remarks indicating he believed the claim should be paid and criticizing Great American’s conduct.
- The trial court struck Great American’s affirmative defenses as "legally invalid" and denied disqualification; Great American sought a writ of prohibition from the appellate court.
- The Third District found that the judge’s comments (e.g., "Then fork over the money," statements treating the June 26, 2012 letter as a denial, and unsolicited legal advice to plaintiff’s counsel) demonstrated prejudgment and partiality, warranting disqualification and granting the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial judge’s comments require disqualification | Judge’s statements reflect proper case management and do not show bias | Comments show prejudgment and partiality before any evidence; create reasonable fear of unfair trial | Granted: judge’s remarks (e.g., "fork over the money") objectively warranted disqualification |
| Whether striking defenses was proper | Striking defenses was justified as legally invalid under case schedule | Striking defenses prejudiced insurer without evidentiary basis | Implicitly undermined by finding of judicial partiality; disqualification required |
| Whether pre‑litigation consultant’s opinions are protected (work product) | Association argued opinions should be discoverable; consultant relied upon for denial | Great American asserted work‑product protection and that report was conditional and not produced | Court recognized a colorable work‑product argument; trial judge should not have prejudged need for report |
| Characterization of June 26, 2012 letter (denial vs. reservation of rights) | Association: letter was a denial | Great American: letter was reservation of rights requesting info and citing defenses | Appellate court viewed letter as a standard reservation of rights; trial court’s labeling as a "denial" was premature and part of prejudgment |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 194 So. 613 (Fla. 1939) (judicial impartiality principle)
- Kates v. Seidenman, 881 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (judge may not pre‑judge a case)
- Williams v. Balch, 897 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (disqualification where comments signal predisposition before evidence)
- Chastine v. Broome, 629 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (judge must avoid active participation or giving tips to one side)
- Blackpool Assocs., Ltd. v. SM‑106, Ltd., 839 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (relief where judge gave legal advice/suggestions to one party)
- DeMetro v. Barad, 576 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (disqualification where judge’s comments imply future disbelief of a party)
- Wade v. Wade, 123 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (standard of review — de novo for orders denying disqualification)