Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

February 10, 2015 | Blog Post| Does Florida's statutory duty to disclose insurance information apply to out-of-state policies?

One of the most common questions I get from insurers of out-of-state policyholders is whether they are required to honor a Florida claimant’s request for disclosure of insurance information under Florida Statute 627.4137. If the applicable policy was not delivered in Florida or issued for delivery in Florida, the short answer is “No.” Nonetheless, sometimes an insurer can best protect both its insured and itself by voluntarily providing at least some of the information outlined in the statute.

Section 627.4137 was enacted in 1982 to give claimants access to information about a defendant’s liability insurance when making settlement decisions. The statute requires a liability insurer to produce a copy of the policy and to disclose the following information, under oath, within 30 days of a claimant’s request: a) the name of the insurer; b) the name of each insured; c) the limits of liability coverage; and d) a statement of any policy or coverage defense which such insurer reasonably believes is available to such insurer at the time of filing such statement.

Out-of-state insurers whose policyholders are involved in accidents in Florida raise several concerns upon receipt of a claimant’s request for statutory disclosure. As a preliminary matter, these insurers do not have a system in place to generate an affidavit that satisfies the statute. Additionally, insurers balk at providing a copy of their insured’s policy to a stranger. They cite concerns with their insureds’ privacy. For example, information contained in the Declarations Page can reveal the financial status of the insured by identifying the number and type of vehicles or properties owned and the insured’s address.

Whether and how to respond to each request for disclosure must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. This article does not attempt to provide a “one size fits all solution.” Nor does this article address the separate scenario of responding to a time demand for policy limits conditioned upon “full compliance” with the statute. These demands are a common bad faith “set up.” How to respond to them warrants a discussion with your counsel relative to the particular facts of your case.

But there are some basics that may be helpful. Foreign insurers handling the occasional claim in Florida should be aware that Florida’s common law requirement of “good faith” will likely apply to any later ensuing extracontractual litigation. Under the common law, an insurer’s failure to disclose policy limits to the claimant can be grounds for extracontractual exposure. An insurer’s refusal to disclose policy limits obstructs settlement by depriving the claimant of a basis to evaluate the case. Even in California, which prohibits an insurer from disclosing policy limits to a claimant without written permission from the insured, an insurer can face extracontractual exposure for failing to seek its insured’s permission to disclose limits, when the nondisclosure prevents settlement.

Also, producing the policy itself is less critical than disclosing limits. Many times the claimant does not actually want or need a copy of the policy and is satisfied with production of the Declarations Page as verification of the applicable limits. To the extent that the Declarations Page reveals personal information, privacy concerns can be adequately accommodated in most cases by redacting certain information from the Declarations page, or obtaining the insured’s permission to produce the Declarations Page, or some combination of both approaches. In the absence of a Declarations Page, the claimant’s attorney may be reluctant to accept the insurer’s word concerning the amount of the policy limits.

If the insurer is denying coverage or reserving the right to do so, the policy itself gains heightened importance. The typical Plaintiff’s attorney will want to review the policy to evaluate the strength of the insurer’s coverage defense before deciding whether to recommend that her client abandon suit against an insured with no collectible assets. Failing to produce the policy could result in a Plaintiff filing suit who might otherwise have been deterred upon receipt of a policy supporting the insurer’s coverage defense.

To sum up, an insurer’s voluntary disclosure of certain information outlined in Florida Statute 627.4137 can aid in settlement of claims against the insured. Settlement of the claim against the insured will in turn protect the insurer from extracontractual exposure. Insurers should keep in mind that, to the extent they choose to voluntarily comply with the statute, courts may hold them responsible for meeting the statutory requirements.

A profile photo of Fay RyanFay Ryan 

Fay specializes in extra-contractual matters, third party coverage, with an emphasis on construction defect coverage, and complex liability defense. She is admitted to practice before all state courts in Florida and the United States District Court for the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida. Fay can be reached at fryan@butler.legal or by calling (813) 281-1900.

August 13, 2019 Blog PostThe Evolving Limitations on Appraisers in Florida: Analyzing State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Sanders

Appraisers are frequently involved in Florida property claims.  Accordingly, Florida courts continue to refine the roles and limitations with respect to appraisers and the appraisal process as a whole...

Read More »
February 26, 2019 Blog PostTHE MARKOVITS DECISION: CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Recently, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal held that for purposes of determining the timeliness of a proposal for settlement, the complaint is considered served on the insurer when process is served upon the statutory agent, Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, and not when process is forwarded by the Chief Financial Officer to the insurer.  Markovits v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) rehr’g denied (Feb. 5, 2018).

Read More »
February 21, 2019 Blog PostNot Off the Hook...Trouble in Paradise for Puerto Rico Insurers

Recent legislative and judicial developments in Puerto Rico may very well have revived thousands of claims that insurers believed to be time-barred, per the terms of the Suit Against Us provisions of their Policies. Until the February 14, 2019, ruling issued by a San Juan court, residential property damage claims that had not escalated to suit within a year of the date of loss, had been considered time-barred. It would seem that it may not be the case anymore, and insurers should be prepared for a potential flurry of new litigation, even involving prior Hurricane Irma and Maria claims.

Read More »
January 14, 2019 Blog PostChecking the Vitals of Hospital Liens

Claims adjusters, plaintiffs’ attorneys and defense attorneys all deal with the headaches of hospital liens.  And recent case law and inconsistent recording of liens by clerks in different counties makes matters worse.

Read More »
August 16, 2018 Blog PostNot so Fast! The Confession of Judgment Doctrine in Dispute-Over-Amount Cases

Florida law allows an insured to recover attorney’s fees if the insured prevails in a lawsuit against the insurer for insurance benefits.  See § 627.428, Florida Statutes.  The plain text of the statute requires a “judgment” against the insurer.  In Wollard v. Lloyd's & Companies of Lloyd's, 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1983), however, the Florida Supreme Court held that an insurer’s post-suit payment of a claim may be the “functional equivalent of a confession of judgment or a verdict in favor of the insured”, thus, triggering the fee-shifting statute.

Read More »
January 22, 2018 Blog PostButler Wins Dismissal of a First-Party Bad Faith Claim Involving a Civil Remedy Notice That Listed a Different Household Policy

In Florida, an insured cannot bring a first-party bad faith claim based on a claim for UM coverage unless the insured first files a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) with the Florida Department of Financial Services. In Mathurin v. State Farm, Butler recently vindicated the importance of this step by winning a dismissal of a first-party bad faith action where the CRN did not match up with the Complaint.  

Read More »
March 07, 2017 Blog PostFederal Diversity Jurisdiction: Proving Citizenship of Limited Liability Companies

Jurisdiction gives a federal court the power to hear a case. Jurisdiction matters at the outset of a lawsuit. It matters during discovery. It even matters after summary judgment. Jurisdiction matters because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

Read More »
April 01, 2016 Blog PostSouthern District Applies Fridman v. Safeco to Preclude Bifurcation

However, the Levesque case points out the down-side of GEICO’s strategy to preclude the jury in the UIM case from determining the insured’s full damages.  If the insured is precluded from proving its damages in the UIM case, it must necessarily be entitled to prove them in the subsequent bad faith case.

Read More »
March 31, 2016 Blog PostInsured is Entitled to a Determination of Liability and Damages in a UIM Case Despite the Insurer's Confession of Judgment

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the trial court was correct (disagreeing with the intermediate court’s decision to the contrary).

Read More »
June 02, 2015 Blog PostThe Florida Supreme Court Endorses Citizens' Immunity

The high court declared that Citizens is shielded from statutory bad-faith suits, and that bad faith is not a “willful tort,” which is a statutory exception to the immunity granted by the Florida Legislature.  The vindication was a long time coming for Citizens.  The Legislature created Citizens with a broad immunity that seemed clearly intended to shield it from bad-faith actions...

Read More »
January 20, 2015 Blog PostThe Season of Giving: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Finds Bad Faith Claims to be Assignable

Rejecting the holdings of two recent decisions by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in a 5-to-1 ruling that claims under Pennsylvania’s Bad Faith Statute (42 Pa.C.S. § 8371) are assignable to injured third parties. The decision, Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wolfe, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3309 (Pa. Dec. 15, 2014), considered the case of Jared Wolfe, who was injured in a car accident after being struck by Karl Zierle’s vehicle. 

Read More »
August 26, 2014 Blog PostBad Faith: Turns Out, Abnormal in Alabama Really Is Normal

A few years ago, I published an article that questioned whether Alabama’s tort of bad faith was becoming more prevalent on a theory referred to by Alabama courts as an “abnormal bad faith” action. See, “Is Abnormal Becoming the New Normal in Alabama?” Mealey’s Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 22, #20 (February 26, 2009).

Read More »
Key Points
Author Practice Area