Está en la página 1de 3

794 Fla.


1 tion, 867 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004);

ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, Centennial Mortgage, Inc. v. SG/SC, Ltd.,
Appellant, 772 So.2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Ap-
plying this standard, we conclude that the
insurance contract in question is not am-
Fred SIMPLER and Loretta biguous, but plainly provides that the pol-
M. Burton, Appellees. icy issued to Simpler does not include
No. 1D04–135. coverage for the premises where Burton
allegedly sustained her personal injuries.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Accordingly, the trial court erred by con-
First District. sidering parol evidence to determine the
Dec. 29, 2004. parties’ intent on this issue.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 2005. As to the trial court’s application of the
doctrine of promissory estoppel, we con-
An appeal from Circuit Court for Walton clude that this case does not involve cir-
County. William F. Stone, Judge. cumstances that would place it within the
Carol A. Fenello of Law Offices of Clin- narrow exceptions to the general rule that
ton D. Flagg, Miami, for Appellant. estoppel will not operate to create or ex-
tend coverage where coverage does not
Harry E. Barr and Leslie D. Sheekley of
exist. See Doe v. Allstate Insurance Com-
Chesser & Barr, P.A., Shalimar, for Appel-
pany, 653 So.2d 371 (Fla.1995); Crown
lee Fred Simpler.
Life Insurance Company v. McBride, 517
David B. Pleat, Amy A. Perry, and So.2d 660 (Fla.1987). Cf. Florida Munici-
Christopher H. McElroy of Pleat & Perry, pal Insurance Trust v. Village of Golf, 850
P.A., Destin, for Appellee Loretta M. Bur- So.2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Florida
ton. Physicians Insurance Company v. Stern,
563 So.2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
The appellant, Essex Insurance Compa- ALLEN, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ.,
ny, challenges a final order by which the concur.
trial court ruled that a policy of insurance
issued by Essex to Appellee Fred Simpler
provided liability coverage in relation to a
personal injury claim brought against Sim-
pler by Appellee Loretta Burton. In
reaching this conclusion, the court relied Clifford SIMPSON, Appellant,
upon parol evidence to determine the in- v.
tent of the parties, and also relied upon the AMERICAN CUSTOM INTERIORS,
doctrine of estoppel. Concluding that the Appellee.
trial court erred in both respects, we re- No. 1D04–0304.
verse the order under review.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
As both parties acknowledge, the stan-
First District.
dard of review applicable to the determi-
nation of whether a contract is ambiguous Dec. 30, 2004.
is the de novo standard of review. See V Background: Workers’ compensation
& M Erectors, Inc. v. Middlesex Corpora- claimant sought benefits for lower back
Cite as 911 So.2d 794 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 2004)

injury. Paul T. Terlizzese, Judge of Work- claim. Therefore, the petition for benefits
ers’ Compensation Claims, determined should have been dismissed without a rul-
that claimant was not entitled to benefits ing on the merits of the misrepresentation
in the future because he made a misrepre- defense.
sentation of fact. Claimant appealed. In April of 2003, Simpson filed a petition
Holding: The District Court of Appeal for benefits seeking indemnity benefits
held that having found that he lacked ju- and authorization for surgery for a lower-
risdiction to rule on workers’ compensation back injury. The employer and carrier
claimant’s request for surgery for low back had previously accepted the injury as com-
pain, workers’ compensation judge lacked pensable but refused to authorize surgery.
jurisdiction to rule on defense of factual Shortly before the hearing on his petition
misrepresentation as to that claim. began, Simpson withdrew the claim for
Reversed and remanded. indemnity benefits, leaving only the re-
quest for surgery to be decided.

Workers’ Compensation O993 The judge found that he lacked jurisdic-

Having found that he lacked jurisdic- tion to consider the medical issue of the
tion to rule on workers’ compensation authorization for surgery, because
claimant’s request for surgery for lower Simpson had not exhausted the managed
back injury, workers’ compensation judge care grievance procedures. However, he
lacked jurisdiction to rule on defense of went on to rule on the employer and carri-
factual misrepresentation as to that claim. er’s affirmative defense of factual misrep-
resentation. The judge found that
Simpson had committed a misrepresenta-
tion for the purpose of securing benefits,
because he had not been truthful about the
John M. Schwartz of Blumenthal, fact that he had been earning money dur-
Schwartz & Saxe, P.A., Titusville, for Ap- ing the time that he was receiving indem-
pellant. nity benefits. Given this finding, the
Gregory D. White of Hurley, Rogner, judge further ruled that Simpson was not
Miller, Cox & Waranch & Westcott, P.A., entitled to any future workers’ compensa-
Winter Park, for Appellee. tion benefits.1 The judge denied the re-
quest for surgery, based on both the lack
PER CURIAM. of jurisdiction to consider medical issues
The appellant, Clifford Simpson, chal- and on the finding of misrepresentation.
lenges a determination that he is not enti- We conclude that the judge exceeded his
tled to recover workers’ compensation ben- jurisdiction by ruling on the misrepresen-
efits in the future because he made a tation defense. Having found that he
misrepresentation of fact, in violation of lacked jurisdiction to rule on the request
sections 440.09(4) and 440.105(4)(b)(1), for surgery, he should have simply dis-
Florida Statutes. We conclude that the missed the petition without ruling on
judge of compensation claims lacked juris- whether Simpson actually committed a
diction to rule on the underlying indemnity misrepresentation. Although the judge

1. Section 440.09(4) denies workers’ compen- forth in 440.105, for the purpose of securing
sation benefits to any worker who knowingly workers’ compensation benefits.
or intentionally engages in any of the acts set

would have had jurisdiction over the in- (1) defendant was not in custody at time of
demnity issue, Simpson had withdrawn interview, and thus, police officers had
that claim, so it was no longer before the no duty to answer questions about
judge. The employer and carrier may need for counsel, and
raise the misrepresentation defense again (2) confession to transmitting child por-
if Simpson files another petition for bene- nography over internet on computer in
fits in the future, after exhausting the his residence was not prompted by im-
managed care grievance procedures. But proper action by police.
for now, with no jurisdiction over the only
claim before him, the judge lacked juris-
diction to rule on the defense to that claim. Ervin, J., dissented with opinion.

Therefore, we reverse that part of the

order ruling substantively on the misrep- 1. Criminal Law O1139, 1158(4)
resentation defense and concluding that
An order denying a motion to sup-
the appellant is not entitled to any future
press a confession is reviewed on appeal
benefits. On remand, the judge shall dis-
by a two-part standard; the findings of fact
miss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
in the order are presumed to be correct
Reversed and remanded. and may not be rejected if they are sup-
ported by competent substantial evidence,
BOOTH, VAN NORTWICK and but the legal conclusions the trial court has
PADOVANO, JJ., Concur. drawn from the facts are reviewed by the
de novo standard.

, 2. Criminal Law O412.1(4)

As with the Miranda warning itself,
the duty to answer a specific question
arises only if the suspect is in custody or
his freedom has otherwise been signifi-
cantly restrained.
Gregory Dean EVANS, Appellant,
3. Criminal Law O412.2(4)
Defendant was not in custody at time
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
of interview, and thus, police officers had
No. 1D03–5088. no duty to answer questions about need
for counsel; defendant was interviewed in
District Court of Appeal of Florida, his own apartment, officers were in plain
First District. clothes and they were not displaying their
Feb. 22, 2005. weapons, officers approached defendant
and asked if he would speak with them, to
Rehearing Denied March 31, 2005.
which he agreed, when defendant indicated
Background: Defendant was convicted in that he would speak with officers, they
the Circuit Court, Duval County, Karen K. asked if they could enter his apartment,
Cole, J., of possession of child pornogra- and he agreed, and during interview, offi-
phy. Defendant appealed. cers said nothing to lead defendant to be-
Holdings: The District Court of Appeal, lieve he was being detained or that his
Padovano, J., held that: freedom of movement was restricted.