The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

03-1598


GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS MICHAEL BURKE, AND I REPRESENT THE PETITIONER FLORIDA , MUNICIPAL WANTED, SO I S IT YOUR POSITION THAT, BECAUSE SUIT WASN'T FILED UNTIL APOINT IN TIME OUT , THERE ARE CLAIMS THAT COULD ARISE, INVOLVING THE SPOILATION OF EVIDENCE . QUESTIONING THE INSUROR , THE INSURED HAS EVERY REASON TO TO COOPERATEAND THE INSUROR HAS AN OBLIGATION TO INVESTIGATECLAIMS. I THINK THE ESSENCE OF WHAT WE ARE SAYING TO MAKE IS THAT , TO HOLD OTHERWISE CONTROL IT.

WHAT WE SAY THERE IS THAT THE LAW HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN THAT, UNTIL THE TO BE , IF THEIR POLICIES ARE GOING TO BE EXTENDED AND LOOK AT THE POLICY AND FRANKLY REALIZED WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REALIZED FROM THE BEGINNING , WHICH WAS THAT THIS WA COVERAGE , WHERE EVERYBODY ADMITS THAT , IF AT THE OUTSET THAT I DON'T THINK THIS DID MUCH DAMAGE?

DID THE FARMER SAY I DON'T THINK --

THE FARMERS BURN , MAKING IT BURN SOON AFTERCONTACT.THERE WAS AN ABUNDANCE O F PICTURES AND TESTIMONY FROM HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHAT PREJUDICE IS? WE DETERMINE SUFFICIENT PREJUDICE TO ESTABLISH A N ESTOPPEL. HERE -- .

ARE YOU SAYING, S AGREE THAT JUST BECAUSE , YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOW THAT IN FACT, THERE WAS SOMETHING MORE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE. I MEA IMPORTANTLY , THE DuBOIS FARMERS HAD AN EXPERT REALLY A QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE THAT THE AMOUNT IS , INVOLVES ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM ANY KIND OF CLAIM. THEY HAVE STATED --

WHERE DOES TH CLAIMS, THE INSURED CERTAINLY IMPLIED , IF NOT EXPLICITLY STATED, THAT THERE WAS COVERAGE. SIX WEEKS LATER , AND THAT , IN AND OF ITSELF, I HAVE HIRED ITS OWN INVESTIGATOR. IT COULD HAVE DONE THINGS TO PROTECT ITSELF AGAINST THE DAY ITSOWN.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS , ONCE THE ACTUA COURT HAS ACCEPTED, THE FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION OF CROWNROYAL AND THEN , OF COURSE , IT YOUR CONTENTION, THAT, WHAT IS THE JURY TOLD IN THE JURY INSTRUCTION, ABOUT PREJUDICE?

THE WITH PREJUDICE? BECAUSE EVEN UNDER THE FOURTH DISTRICT CASE , THIS WOULD GO BACK FOR ISN'T JUST YOU GET COVERAGE AS IF YOU HAD THE FULL POLICY , BUT THE MEASUREOF DAMAGES GOTTEN THE CASE AT THE OUTSET, AND JUMPED RIGHT ON IT. WHATEVER . WOULD YOU A USED YOUR TIME , SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR . MARSHAL, REBUTTAL TIME . A TORT-BASED CONCEPT. YOU ARE LOOK ING TO SEE WHAT WAS THAT I WILL CONCLUDE . I AM OUT OF TIME. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOUBOTH ,