Florida

Subscribe to Florida via RSS

One practice that has plagued the insurance industry in recent years has been contractors soliciting homeowners to make insurance claims after a hailstorm, for example, and then obtaining an assignment of rights to the claim and pursuing litigation against the insurer. The Iowa Supreme Court recently ruled that a contractor’s attempt to obtain such an assignment of rights was void because the contractor was acting as an unlicensed public adjuster, in violation of state law. The line of argument made here may be useful to insurers in other jurisdictions faced with abusive practices by contractors.
Continue Reading Assignments of Benefits Under Homeowners Insurance Policies: Iowa Supreme Court Rules that Assignment Was Void Because Contractor Was Acting as Unlicensed Public Adjuster

A new law represents a major step forward to remedy Florida’s assignment of benefits (“AOB”) crisis, which Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has described as a “racket” in recent years. On Thursday May 23, 2019, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 7065, which addresses the abuse of post-loss AOBs for residential and commercial property insurance claims, by (among other things):
Continue Reading New Statutory Framework Confronts Florida’s AOB Crisis

Notice provisions in property insurance policies typically require the insured to promptly provide notice of a loss to the insurer. Despite the plain language requiring prompt notice, some jurisdictions require that an insured’s late notice cause some prejudice to the insurer in order to make a finding of no coverage. The court’s decision in De La Rosa v. Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co., 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 6893 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May 16, 2018), demonstrates the consequences of failing to provide prompt notice that resulted in prejudice to the insurer. 
Continue Reading Late Notice in Florida: Appellate Court Affirms Finding of No Coverage Where Insurer Prejudiced In Determination of Extent of Damage

Vacancy exclusions are commonplace in many homeowner policies, and typically exclude coverage for certain types of losses if the home is vacant and/or unoccupied. Litigation involving vacancy exclusions can arise when terms in the provision are not defined and an insured claims the terms are ambiguous.

In Jarvis v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 11762 (11th Cir. May 3, 2018), the insured rented a house for several years and when the tenant vacated, the insured paid a handyman about $5,000 to repair drywall, a small roof leak, and some plumbing. During this time, there were major appliances in the home, but no furniture, and nobody lived in the home.  Three months after the tenant moved out, a third party intentionally set fire to the home. The insured submitted an insurance claim, and GeoVera declined to cover the loss based on the vacancy exclusion, which excluded loss due to “vandalism and malicious mischief if the dwelling had been vacant or unoccupied for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss.” The insured sued, alleging that the policy provision stating that “a dwelling being constructed is not considered vacant or unoccupied” applied, excepting the loss from the vacancy exclusion. The Middle District of Florida agreed with GeoVera, finding the exception inapplicable to renovations, repairs, or refurbishments.
Continue Reading Vacancy Exclusion: Eleventh Circuit (Florida) Weighs In On “Dwelling Being Constructed” Exception

In Johnson v. Omega Ins. Co., 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2148 (Sept. 29, 2016), the Florida Supreme Court determined that the 5th DCA misapplied and misinterpreted two statutes, the first providing a presumption of correctness to the initial report of an engineer retained by an insurer to investigate a sinkhole claim, and the second providing for the award of attorney’s fees to the insured upon prevailing in litigation.

In Omega, Kathy Johnson’s homeowner’s policy included statutorily mandated sinkhole coverage. In 2010, she filed a claim with Omega to recover for damages she believed were due to sinkhole activity.  In accordance with the statutory framework commonly known as the “sinkhole statutes,” Omega selected an engineer to provide an initial sinkhole investigation. That investigation revealed no sinkhole activity, and Omega denied Johnson’s claim. Under Fla. Stat. § 627.7073(1)(c), the engineer’s findings and recommendations are afforded a statutory presumption of correctness.
Continue Reading Florida Sinkhole Statute and Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees Without Bad Faith: Florida Supreme Court Reverses the 5th DCA and Reiterates Prior Holdings