Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

April 15, 2020 | Blog Post| Local Florida Governments have issued Orders suggesting COVID-19 caused property damage

Does this matter for Insurance Policy interpretation?

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued an Executive Order declaring a state of emergency due to COVID-19.  Many Florida cities and counties have issued their own orders to reduce the spread of the virus.  At least two of the orders contained language that was curious to those connected to the property insurance industry.

Broward County Emergency Order 20-03 contained the following clause:

WHEREAS, this Emergency Order is necessary because of the propensity of the virus to spread person to person and also because the virus is physically causing property damage due to its proclivity to attach to surfaces for prolonged periods of time.

Panama City Resolution No. 20200318.1 contained the following clause:

This resolution is necessary because of the propensity of the virus to spread person to person and also because the virus physically is causing property damage due to its proclivity to attach to surfaces for prolonged periods of time.

The word choice was curious because the insuring language in most property insurance policies require property damage in order for there to be a covered loss.  For instance, the insuring language may say:

We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.

Shortly after Broward County issued its order, at least one person began to advertise a “Coronavirus Disinfection training course.”  One of the topics covered:

Broward County has stated that the virus is causing property damage. Can there be insurance coverage under a $3K AOB for emergency services mitigation under HB7065.

The mention of HB7065 is a reference to a recent law passed in Florida.  It is codified at Florida Statute § 627.7152.  It reads, in relevant part:

If an assignor acts under an urgent or emergency circumstance to protect property from damage and executes an assignment agreement to protect, repair, restore, or replace property or to mitigate against further damage to the property, an assignee may not receive an assignment of post-loss benefits under a residential property insurance policy in excess of the greater of $3,000 or 1 percent of the Coverage A limit under such policy. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “urgent or emergency circumstance” means a situation in which a loss to property, if not addressed immediately, will result in additional damage until measures are completed to prevent such damage.

We assume, for purposes of this article, that the virus is not causing damage to property as would commonly be understood by a court.  Does a county or city order that says otherwise change the analysis?  In my view, the answer is no.

The interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law for a court.

The interpretation of an insurance policy is, under Florida law, a question of law to be decided by a court.[i]  Florida courts are bound by the plain meaning of the language used when interpreting an insurance policy.[ii]  It is doubtful, then, that a court would look to a city or county order when determining whether “the virus physically is causing property damage due to its proclivity to attach to surfaces for prolonged periods of time.” 

A Florida court would be unlikely to look to a local ordinance or order to define an undefined term.

Insurance policies often do not define “damage” or “property damage.”  However, the lack of a definition does not render a policy term ambiguous.[iii]  When a term in a policy is undefined, Florida courts must give the term its plain meaning, and will look to legal and non-legal dictionary definitions to determine the meaning.[iv]  A court should not look to city or county ordinances or proclamations for the meaning of a term.

This principle is seen in Glaser v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co.[v]  In that case, the parties looked to the Florida Building Code to define terms of a policy.  However, the court instead concluded that the court must look to the insurance policy and give words their ordinary meaning.  The court did not rely on the Building Code.

Similarly, in Hegel v. First Liberty Ins. Corp.,[vi] the court refused to look to the Florida Building Code for the definition of a policy term.  Instead, the court said it must determine the plain meaning of the term by utilizing the procedure required by Florida law, which included, as stated previously, construing the insurance policy according to its plain meaning and, if necessary, consulting dictionary definitions. 

In Glaser and Hegel, the court refused to look to the Florida Building Code to provide the definition of an otherwise undefined term of an insurance policy.  Thus, a fortiori, a court is unlikely to refer to city or county orders or proclamations, particularly where doing so would potentially create a patchwork of coverage based on the locality of the insured property. 

Florida courts only look to statutes in effect at the time the policy was written.

In Grant v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,[vii] the Florida Supreme Court recognized the rule that:

[W]here a contract of insurance is entered into on a matter surrounded by statutory limitations and requirements, the parties are presumed to have entered into such agreement with reference to the statute, and the statutory provisions become a part of the contract.”

Insurance is an area “surrounded by statutory limitations”.  Thus, courts presume that parties enter into insurance policies with knowledge of the relevant statutory provisions.  Accordingly, relevant statutory provisions are deemed part of the insurance policy.[viii]

Likewise, in Shelton v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,[ix] the Eleventh Circuit summarized Florida law:

“It is fundamental that the laws of Florida are a part of every Florida contract.” “[A]ll existing applicable or relevant and valid statutes, ... at the time a contract is made become a part of it and must be read into it just as if an express provision to that effect were inserted therein, except where the contract discloses a contrary intention.”

Accordingly, a “statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.”

The Shelton case addressed the definition of “structural damage” in the sinkhole context.  The insurance policy did not contain a definition for structural damage.  However, a Florida statute did define that term.  The statute specified that it supplied a definition for “structural damage” “as used in connection with any policy providing coverage for…sinkhole losses.”[x]  The Eleventh Circuit concluded that “under Florida law, the statutory definition ‘must be read into [the … policy] just as if an express provision to that effect were inserted therein....’”[xi]

The rules articulated and discussed in Grant and Shelton apply to statutes.  There is no corresponding rule for city or county orders.  It would not make sense, frankly, for such a rule to exist because parties to a contract cannot be charged with knowledge of every local order, ordinance or proclamation. 

In addition, even in the context of a statute, the statutory provision must be “applicable or relevant.”[xii]  The local orders issued to date are not relevant or applicable to property insurance.  They generally apply to “Shelter-in-Place” and “social distancing.”  On the other hand, the statute addressed in Shelton expressly stated it supplied the definition for use in connection with insurance policies providing sinkhole coverage.  A law dealing with one subject should not be imported to supply a rule or definition in an unrelated subject. 

Finally, even in the context of a statute, the statute must exist when the insurance policy was issued.[xiii]  A legislative enactment generally cannot alter existing contractual rights.[xiv]  Thus, local orders, even if relevant to property insurance (which they are not, as explained above), cannot retroactively alter the definition of property damage.

Local orders regarding property insurance are preempted.

Insurance in Florida is subject to a pervasive scheme of regulations and statutes.[xv]  Under Florida law, a local governmental law may be inconsistent with state law if the Legislature has preempted a particular subject area.  Preemption can be expressed or implied.  “Implied preemption is found where the state legislative scheme of regulation is pervasive and the local legislation would present the danger of conflict with that pervasive regulatory scheme.”[xvi] 

In Classy Cycles, a Florida county and city created ordinances requiring certain minimum insurance requirements relating to rental scooters, motorcycles, and mopeds.  A Florida appellate court found that these ordinances were preempted.

[T]he Legislature has created a pervasive scheme of regulation, coverage requirements, and limitation of liability, including specific requirements for coverage necessary to operate various motor vehicles in Florida. Thus, the ordinances are an attempt to regulate in an area well-covered by existing statutes. The local governments' ordinances attempting to mandate insurance are therefore impliedly preempted.[xvii]

As stated above, the doctrine of implied preemption is concerned with the danger that local legislation will conflict with a statutory scheme.  That concern is particularly acute if a local order or ordinance could be read to define property damage to include exposure to COVID-19.  In such a scenario, the existence of coverage could depend on the determinations of particular counties or municipalities.  That is not a tenable outcome, and, in my view, a Florida court will reject it.


The orders of Broward County and Panama City are curious for their language.  The language may provide intriguing advertising for a “Coronavirus Disinfection training course.”  But the orders are not likely to affect the interpretation of insurance policies or § 627.7152.

Matthew J. Lavisky | PARTNER

Extra-Contractual and First-Party Coverage

(813) 281-1900 | TAMPA

[i] Ergas v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 114 So. 3d 286, 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

[ii] State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez, 70 So. 3d 566, 569 (Fla. 2011).

[iii] State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. CTC Dev. Corp., 720 So. 2d 1072, 1076 (Fla. 1998).

[iv] Deutsch v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 284 So. 3d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

[v] 420 F. Supp. 3d 1287, 1294 (M.D. Fla. 2019).

[vi] 778 F.3d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir. 2015).

[vii] 638 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1994).

[viii] Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Schwinn, 8:04CV1485T17TBM, 2006 WL 1529092, at *6 (M.D. Fla. May 30, 2006).

[ix] 578 Fed. Appx. 841, 845 (11th Cir. 2014).

[x] Florida Statute § 627.706(2).

[xi] Shelton, 578 Fed. Appx. at 845 (citing Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. R & J Crane Serv., Inc., 765 So. 2d 836, 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

[xii] Northbrook, 765 So. 2d at 839.

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Allstate Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 550 So. 2d 22, 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

[xv] See Florida Insurance Code, Florida Statute § 624.01, et seq. 

[xvi] Classy Cycles, Inc. v. Bay County, 201 So. 3d 779, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

[xvii] Id.

September 23, 2020 Blog PostDefining Occurrence – When Policy Definitions Do Not Apply To All Coverages

On September 8, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in Port Consolidated, Inc. v. International Insurance Company of Hannover, PLC, 2020 WL 5372281 (11th Cir 2020)  The decision is notable for two reasons...

Read More »
September 15, 2020 Blog PostHeads I win, Tails You Lose: Southern Owners Insurance Company v. MAC Contractors

On July 29, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Southern Owners Ins. Co. v. MAC Contractors, of Fla., LLC, --- Fed. Appx. ---, 2020 WL 4345199 (11th Cir. July 29, 2020).  While purporting to follow its own precedent, which narrowly interpreted the Florida Supreme Court’s decisions in United States Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc....

Read More »
July 22, 2020 Blog PostTo Wait or to Mediate?

Mediation has always played a large role in resolving first-property property claims.  Mediation offers a unique opportunity for resolution that is hard to find elsewhere in the life of a litigated case...

Read More »
June 29, 2020 Blog PostPretzel Logic: Cheetham v. Southern Oak and Its Ill-Begotten Progeny

The standard ISO homeowners insurance policy contains an exclusion for damage caused by water which backs up through sewers or drains.  While this appears to be an unambiguous exclusion, using twisted logic, the Third District Court of Appeal in Cheetham v. Southern Oak Ins. Co., 114 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) interpreted this exclusion to apply...

Read More »
June 25, 2020 Blog PostNevada Division of Insurance Issues Notice to Property and Casualty Insurers Disallowing New Exclusions related to COVID-19, viruses, or pandemics

This notice does not impact existing policies that were submitted and approved before the COVID-19 emergency in Nevada.  However, the NVDOI has requested that insurers voluntarily withdraw any such exclusions from policies submitted and approved on or after March 12, 2020.  

Read More »
June 18, 2020 Blog PostButler's Thursday Tips #8 | Importance of a Mediator

Join attorney Shaheen Nouri as he gives three reasons why a mediator is important in a First-Party claim.

Read More »

In the last 60 days, COVID-19 has affected us all. Federal and state governments have issued quarantine orders. Schools have been closed. And many businesses have been adversely affected. Although North Carolina’s Federal Courts have not (yet) issued any COVID-19 related rulings, they have, in the last 60 days, issued several new coverage decisions. One of those has significantly curtailed the ability of any appraisal to proceed...

Read More »

States, counties and municipalities have issued “stay at home”, “shelter-in-place”, and other orders relating to COVID-19.  Many orders require the suspension of non-essential construction projects. The orders typically have exemptions, for projects like critical or essential infrastructure, public works, and housing. In light of these orders, construction projects around the country will be delayed...

Read More »

Other states have taken even more drastic action. For example, the Mayor of Philadelphia ordered the shutdown of all nonessential businesses, followed shortly by a similar order by the Governor of Pennsylvania...

Read More »

Florida courts continue to refine the roles and limitations of appraisers in Florida property claims.  Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal recently held that a public adjuster cannot serve as a disinterested appraiser where the public adjuster is retained on a contingency fee basis...

Read More »

Most first party property coverage policies contain an appraisal provision that allows either the insured or the insurer to make a written demand for appraisal when the parties agree that covered property was damaged by a covered cause of loss, but disagree on the value of that damaged property...

Read More »
November 14, 2019 Blog Post"Slow and Steady" or "Fast and Furious": Repeated Seepage or Leakage Policy Exclusion Prevails

A recent ruling in a U.S. District Court in Missouri may suggest a new path for policy exclusions based on “continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water.”...

Read More »
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 »
May 10, 2019 Blog PostWhat Baseball Has Taught Me About The Insurance Appraisal Process

Anyone who has ever watched baseball knows that umpires sometimes make an incorrect call. In appraisal of a property insurance claim, sometimes the umpire can make a mistake as well.

Read More »
April 26, 2019 Blog PostBreaking News! Florida AOB Reform Explained

The Florida Legislature passed a bill that makes significant changes to the assignment of benefits (“AOB”) process in Florida.  Governor Ron DeSantis stated he will sign the bill into law.  The effective date will be July 1, 2019.

Read More »
March 07, 2019 Blog PostPennsylvania court rules insurer may still be responsible to pay RCV even if repairs never completed.

In situations where a property insurer denies coverage, the insured often complains that it is faced with a difficult dilemma – use its own money to fund repairs or avoid making repairs and risk having its recovery limited to actual cash value (ACV) if the insurer is later found liable for coverage.

Read More »

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 »
September 19, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence: Civil Authority and Ingress/Egress Coverage

The hurricane may trigger civil authority or ingress/egress coverage for businesses that are not directly damaged but lose income because they cannot access their operations for a period of time due to a governmental evacuation order.

Read More »
September 10, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence is aiming for the Carolinas

Once Hurricane Florence passes through the region, insurance professionals can expect a deluge of claims activity. While both North Carolina and South Carolina have felt the effects of recent Hurricanes Irene and Matthew, for example, many insurance professionals have limited familiarity with the particularized coverage issues which may arise in both states. Navigating the laws of both states, which can be both parallel and disparate, is going to be important in Florence’s aftermath.    

Read More »
September 06, 2018 Blog PostFull Consent to Assignments

Consent Not Fully Given: Fourth District Court of Appeal Enforces Policy Provision Requiring Consent of All Insureds and Mortgagees to Any Assignment of Benefits

Read More »

The legislatures are directing the public adjuster to focus on negotiating the insurance claim as opposed to profiting from remediation or remediation efforts and to ensure that all relationships are properly disclosed to the insured. This is certainly a move in the right direction.

Read More »
March 07, 2018 Blog PostFirst-Party Property Bad Faith in Florida - Podcast

Increasingly, property insurers in Florida are being sued for bad faith. What accounts for this increase?  Mainly, it has been driven by recent appellate court decisions that have eroded and all but eliminated any prerequisites to bad faith actions.  In part one of this two-part webinar series, we will outline the legal environment created by those decisions; attempt to define “bad faith”; explore the use and abuse of the civil remedy notice of insurer violation, and; discuss some things that can be done either to avoid a bad faith lawsuit altogether or, at least, to put the file in the best posture if a bad faith lawsuit can’t be avoided.

Read More »
February 23, 2018 Blog PostFlorida Court Rules Against Insurer on Seepage/Leakage Exclusion

Florida first-party property insurers have seen a dramatic rise in the number of reported water loss claims over the past five years.  Many insurance policies contain an exclusion for losses “caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water over a period of 14 or more days.”  Today, one Florida appellate court ruled that “an insurance policy excluding losses caused by constant or repeated leakage or seepage over a period of fourteen days or more does not unambiguously exclude losses caused by leakage or seepage over a period of thirteen days or less.”

Read More »
January 16, 2018 Blog PostAOB Reform Bill Passes Florida House, Senate Future Uncertain

On January 12, 2018, the Florida House of Representatives passed a bill (HB 7015) that would dramatically affect the way contractors and their lawyers use assignments of benefits (“AOBs”) in first-party property insurance claims and lawsuits.  The biggest changes in the bill impact how AOBs must be written, new obligations on assignee contractors in the claim investigation process, limitations on when assignee contractors can file lawsuits, and how and when attorney fees are awarded (see all the details of the bill below). 

Read More »

Florida House Bill 911, “An Act Relating to Insurance Adjusters” became law on January 1, 2018. In large part, the new legislation deals with the internal operation of public adjusting firms. For example:

Read More »
November 06, 2017 Blog PostContingency Fee Multipliers: Florida Supreme Court Rejects Rare and Exceptional Circumstances Requirement

The United States Supreme Court analyzed the availability of contingency fee enhancements under fee-shifting statutes in Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992). There, the Court held that a contingency enhancement was not permitted under fee-shifting provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and Clean Water Act. It reversed a 25% lodestar enhancement. Justice Scalia wrote the majority decision. He emphasized that fees are “certain” or “contingent.” Id. at 560. A fee is certain if it is payable without regard to the outcome of the suit; it is contingent if the obligation to pay depends on a particular result obtained. Id. at 560-61.

Read More »
September 01, 2017 Blog PostHurricane Hindsight is 20/20

It took years of depositions and other discovery to realize that that most of my 2004-2005 hurricane condominium association claims were much simpler to defend than I thought.   The center of gravity of these claims was the proper calculation of Actual Cash Value (ACV).

Read More »

Due to its holding in Macedo II, the Florida Supreme Court created a situation where, arguably, many auto policies now provide coverage for attorney’s fees and expenses awarded against an insured following an adverse verdict triggering the penalties under a proposal for settlement.

Read More »
July 26, 2017 Blog PostThe Continuing Saga of Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company: The Second District Court of Appeal Rules on Remand

On July 20, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeal issued an order that closed its books on the Sebo appeal.  Mr. Sebo made a homeowner’s claim to American Home contending construction deficiencies had allowed water to enter the residence at multiple points, causing, eventually, a complete destruction of the residence.  The trial court ruled the concurrent cause doctrine applied, and so that the combination of covered water damage and excluded faulty, inadequate and defective construction had resulted in coverage for the loss. 

Read More »
July 25, 2017 Blog PostThat Sinking Feeling: Sinkholes, Florida Law, and Some Questions Raised by The Recent Collapse in Land O' Lakes

The recent catastrophic ground cover collapse in Land O’Lakes attributed to a sinkhole highlights the unique aspects of Florida geology and the impact it can have on the risks faced by building owners and their insurers. In central and western Florida, the land generally consists of a layer of limestone topped by layers of clays and sands. The limestone is a vestige of the shells and skeletons of marine life deposited during prehistoric periods when that layer was at the bottom of shallow seas. Over time, limestone was formed and covered by layers of silts and sands. The limestone is slowly dissolved by groundwater, and constitutes part of the aquifer.

Read More »
July 17, 2017 Blog PostThe Innocent Co-Insured: Underestimating Definite and Indefinite Articles

Four little words—a, an, any, and the—can mean a world of a difference with respect to coverage for an innocent co-insured.  A federal judge (applying Florida law) recently ruled that “that the phrase ‘any insured’ unambiguously expresses a contractual intent to create joint obligations.” Stettin v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA, 2017 WL 2858768 (11th Cir., July 5, 2017) (emphasis added).  The Settin Court solidified a prior U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida case, which held that an intentional loss provision precluded coverage for even innocent co-insureds when the intentional loss provision contained language prohibiting coverage for intentional acts by any insured.

Read More »
July 05, 2017 Blog PostEarth Movement: "Any" Means Any; Home-Owners Insurance Company v. Dominic F. Andriacchi (Michigan Court of Appeals)

For years, courts across the country have considered whether an earth movement exclusion in a policy applies only when the earth movement losses are caused by or stem from natural causes or phenomena, or whether it applies to earth movement losses from both natural and man-made causes.

Read More »
June 22, 2017 Blog PostBottini v. GEICO: Parties to Bad Faith Action Not Bound by $30.8 million-dollar Verdict Without Appellate Review

For years, when a bad faith action was brought pursuant to a jury verdict in excess of policy limits in the underlying UM claim, everyone assumed the jury verdict was binding in the bad faith action. Then, Bottini v. GEICO resulted in a $30.8 million-dollar verdict – over 600 times the policy’s UM limit of $50,000! GEICO appealed, and the Second DCA concluded that even if GEICO were correct that errors affected the jury’s computation of damages, any such errors were harmless in the context of this case.

Read More »
June 20, 2017 Blog PostFlorida's Third District Court of Appeals provides a warning: When insureds communicate about their policy needs, agents better listen and communicate back or insurance companies could be left holding the bag in a negligent procurement action.

In Kendall South Medical Center v. Consolidated Insurance Nation, No. 3D16-926, 2017 WL 1908376, *1 (Fla. 3d DCA May 10, 2017), the Third District Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s fourth dismissal of Kendall South Medical Center’s complaint for negligent procurement, holding that there may be liability for negligent procurement where an agent fails to explain to an insured a coinsurance provision that could reduce coverage to less than the amount requested by that insured.

Read More »

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in Pennsylvania recently issued a precedential decision that interpreted the definition of a “named insured” under a tax delinquency statute to encompass tenants of a property even though the property owner, not the tenant, owed the delinquent taxes.

Read More »
March 23, 2017 Blog PostNebraska Supreme Court Rules that an Insurer Can Depreciate Labor in Determining Actual Cash Value

Property policies typically provide, if there is coverage, that the insured can recover for the costs to repair or replace the property damaged by loss.  But when an insured does not repair or replace the damaged property (or until such repairs are made), the insured is only entitled to the actual cash value of the property.  The calculation of actual cash value varies state to state, but generally courts either define it as replacement cost less depreciation or courts use the broad evidence rule. 

Read More »
March 21, 2017 Blog PostPennsylvania Superior Court adopts narrow interpretations of surface water exclusion and ensuing loss clause

In the Ridgewood Group LLC v Millers Capital Insurance Company, No. 1138 EDA 2016, February 27, 2017, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania analyzed two often troublesome policy provisions, the surface water exclusion and the ensuing loss cause .

Read More »
March 14, 2017 Blog Post2017 Florida State Legislature to Consider Bills Aimed at Assignments of Benefits, Water Losses, Appraisers, and Umpires

The 2017 Florida Legislative Session convened on March 7.  Of particular interest to property insurers are the following bills, which we are closely watching: SB 944, proposing licensing requirements upon appraisers and appraisal umpires; SB 1038 and HB 1218, proposing a statute concerning assignments of benefits; and SB 1218, proposing licensing requirements on those who perform water damage restoration and prohibiting policy provisions that preclude post-loss assignments of benefits.

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 »
January 11, 2017 Blog PostWhat Is An Offer of Judgment And Can It Really Lower the Cost of or Shorten Litigation?

Insurance coverage litigation today is often time consuming and expensive.  Many cases include claims for “bad faith” damages, and some cases seek punitive damages.  To support their allegations, litigants will usually seek a wide-array of documents and testimony.  Accordingly, litigating such matters can also become expensive. 

Read More »
June 24, 2016 Blog PostTreading Water: Florida Office of the Insurance Consumer Advocate Holds Forum on Florida's Ongoing Water Loss Crisis

The state of water loss claims abuses in Florida, the water loss marketplace, and water loss damage claims on a national scale were presented by the Division of Insurance Fraud, Bureau of Property & Casualty, and the National Insurance Crime Bureau, respectively. 

Read More »
October 28, 2015 Blog PostWhen Revenge Is Not So "Sweet": The Wages of "Revenge Porn" under Florida's New Cyber Harassment Statute

Policyholders who seek coverage for the monetary consequences of a violation of the statute under the “personal and advertising injury” or general liability coverage in their insurance’ policies are likely to find themselves looking elsewhere for funds.

Read More »
September 08, 2015 Blog PostNJ: Insurers Still On The Hook To Pay Innocent Parties Under Fraudulent Policies

The decision offers further guidance in the somewhat inconsistent world of rescission and automobile policy statutes, which – when accounting for the application misrepresentation, policy, and statutes – can be a tricky process.

Read More »
August 27, 2015 Blog PostLa. Federal District Court Greatly Expands the Duty to Preserve in Response to a Litigation Hold Notice

Takeda appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but it reached a settlement in the MDL litigation in May of 2015 before appellate briefing commenced.  The Actos ruling is isolated to date; no other court has applied this holding or followed its interpretation.

Read More »
August 11, 2015 Blog PostInsurers Don't Sleep on Your Rights: Insurer's Motion to Intervene Denied as Untimely

The court noted that Cincinnati had been defending the action since 2012, but did not file the motion until 2015 and only on the eve of trial.  With regard to the damage interrogatories themselves, the parties argued that neither party’s expert had broken down the damages in the manner proposed by Cincinnati.

Read More »
June 10, 2015 Blog PostPost-Complaint Communications by Insurer's Employees Protected from Discovery in Bad Faith Litigation

The insured failed to articulate any type of argument that he could not obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship.  The court recognized that the insured has the opportunity to conduct bad faith discovery, which may include deposing State Farm adjusters, to obtain the substantial equivalent...

Read More »
April 09, 2015 Blog PostCan an Insured Sue His Adjuster When the Insured is Injured Cleaning Debris, Because the Adjuster Incorrectly Denied Coverage for Debris Removal?

Imagine a gigantic tree limb weighing over 7,000 lbs falling onto your home.  You dutifully call your insurance company to report the loss. So when the adjuster inspects your home and (verbally) tells you that debris removal is not covered by your policy and that you need to clean up the debris (glass, limbs, branches) all by yourself, you clean it up yourself, right?  And when you hurt your hand in the process ...

Read More »
April 08, 2015 Blog PostFourth Circuit Sets Stage For Interpreting Contingent Business Interruption

CBI insurance provides coverage for loss of sales or revenue sustained when business is interrupted due to property damage that occurs away from the insured premises and, consequently, disrupts the flow of goods and services from/to a supplier or customer (referred to as the “dependent” or “contributing” properties). There are a limited number of cases discussing issues relating to CBI insurance; and the Fourth Circuit’s ruling provides greater clarity as to what constitutes a “direct” supplier, which is a common...

Read More »
April 06, 2015 Blog PostIt's a "Storm Surge" -- not a "Flood"!

Both parties cited to the SEACOR Holdings, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 635 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 2011) case. The SEACOR case held that flood limits did not apply to Hurricane Katrina-generated water damage. In the SEACOR policy, there were definitions for flood, windstorm and named windstorm. The definition of windstorm and named windstorm did not include the phrase “storm surge,” but the definition of flood included wind-driven water. The SEACOR court held that all damage caused by Katrina was the result of a named windstorm...

Read More »
September 26, 2014 Blog PostWhen It Comes to Sinkholes, Contracts, Statutes and Regulations Do Matter

On August 21, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Shelton v. Liberty Mutual, Case number 13-15371 / D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-02064-JSM-AEP. This decision confirms that the statutory definitions for structural damage under the May 17, 2011 amendments to the Florida sinkhole statutes apply to property policies issued after those amendments were enacted. The court’s order reversed the positions taken by the District Court that seemed bent on plotting a new course for Florida jurisprudence.

Read More »
July 22, 2014 Blog PostFeng Shui: Direct Physical Loss Does Not Include Damage to Invisible Forces

A federal judge recently ruled that an insurer was not obligated to pay $50,000 for a feng shui consultant following a fire loss in a dentist’s office. Patel v. American Economy Insurance Co. et al., No. 12-cv-04719, 2014 WL 1862211 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2014). While the cost to repair the physical damage from the fire was insured under the policy, the court found that the cost to repair damage to any invisible forces that may have been at work in the office was not.

Read More »

Key Points