Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Lauren Woods was injured in a car accident involving an underinsured motorist and sought benefits from her insurer, Progressive American Insurance Company, under her policy’s underinsured motorist provision. Progressive declined to pay the full policy limit. Woods then sued Progressive for breach of contract and statutory bad faith under Florida law, alleging that Progressive failed to settle her claim in good faith. After serving civil remedy notices, Woods’s case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida first held a jury trial on Woods’s underinsured motorist claim, resulting in a verdict and final judgment in her favor that exceeded the policy limit. Woods then proceeded with her statutory bad faith claim before the same court. Prior to the bad faith trial, the parties stipulated to certain facts, including the existence and amount of the prior verdict and judgment. They also agreed that the magistrate judge would determine damages, and the jury would decide only liability. At the start of the bad faith trial, Woods limited her theory to Progressive’s conduct before the underinsured motorist trial, and the court excluded evidence and instructions regarding the prior verdict and excess judgment. The jury found for Progressive on the bad faith claim, and the court denied Woods’s motion for a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the prior verdict and excess judgment from the bad faith trial. The court found that, given Woods’s stipulation limiting the scope of her claim and the parties’ agreement that damages would be determined by the judge, the excluded evidence was irrelevant to the jury’s determination of liability. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Progressive. View "Woods v. Progressive American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A mass shooting occurred at a Florida high school in 2018, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries. The Sheriff’s Office, which employed a school resource officer at the school, faced 60 lawsuits from victims alleging negligence in failing to secure the premises. The Sheriff’s Office held an excess liability insurance policy with Evanston Insurance Company, which required the Sheriff to pay a $500,000 self-insured retention (SIR) per “occurrence” and a $500,000 annual aggregate deductible before coverage would be triggered. The central dispute was whether the shooting constituted a single “occurrence” under the policy, or multiple occurrences—one for each victim or gunshot.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reviewed the case after the Sheriff filed a declaratory judgment action. The district court denied Evanston’s motion to dismiss, finding that the policy’s definition of “occurrence” was ambiguous under Florida law, and that ambiguity should be construed in favor of the insured. The court determined that the Parkland shooting was a single occurrence, meaning only one SIR applied. The court also found that the Sheriff had satisfied both the SIR and the deductible through legal expenses and other covered claims, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the Sheriff.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Eleventh Circuit held that a justiciable controversy existed, as the Sheriff had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of future injury and had satisfied the policy’s prerequisites for coverage. The court further held that, under controlling Florida law, the term “occurrence” was ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured, resulting in the Parkland shooting being treated as a single occurrence. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the Sheriff. View "Sheriff of Broward County v. Evanston Insurance Company" on Justia Law

L Squared Industries, Inc., a Florida-based operator of gas stations, purchased a storage tank liability insurance policy from Nautilus Insurance Company to cover cleanup costs resulting from pollution caused by underground storage tank discharges. In 2018, after a consultant’s report identified groundwater contamination at one of its stations, L Squared did not notify Nautilus of the pollution condition until eight months later, despite a policy requirement to provide notice within seven days of becoming aware of such a condition. L Squared subsequently sought indemnification from Nautilus for cleanup and defense costs, but Nautilus denied coverage.L Squared filed suit in Florida state court, seeking a declaration of coverage and damages for breach of contract. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Nautilus, finding that L Squared failed to comply with the policy’s seven-day notice provision, and thus Nautilus had no duty to defend or indemnify. L Squared’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and it appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The appellate court held that, under Florida law, when an insured breaches a prompt-notice provision but provides notice within the policy period, coverage is not automatically forfeited; rather, the insurer is presumed prejudiced, but the insured may rebut this presumption. In this case, L Squared failed to timely raise arguments or evidence to rebut the presumption of prejudice. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nautilus, holding that L Squared’s failure to comply with the seven-day notice provision barred coverage. View "L. Squared Industries, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Katherine Martinez was severely injured as a passenger in a multi-vehicle accident in Florida. The driver of the truck that struck the SUV, Diana Guevara, was insured by GEICO, but the truck was not listed on her policy, raising a coverage issue. GEICO investigated the accident, requested medical information from the victims, and, thirty-two days after receiving notice, tendered the full $20,000 policy limit for a global settlement. Martinez rejected the offer and sued Guevara in state court, ultimately obtaining a stipulated final judgment for $2,000,000. Guevara assigned her claims against GEICO to Martinez, who then sued GEICO in federal court for bad faith, seeking to recover the excess judgment.The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment to GEICO, adopting the magistrate judge’s finding that GEICO did not act in bad faith as a matter of law. The court found that Martinez failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer bad faith, particularly regarding GEICO’s investigation and settlement efforts. Martinez appealed, arguing that the totality of the evidence could support a finding of bad faith due to alleged delays and handling of the claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that, under Florida law and the federal summary judgment standard, Martinez did not present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that GEICO acted in bad faith in investigating or settling the claim. The court clarified that mere negligence or delay does not meet the standard for bad faith and found GEICO’s actions reasonable given the circumstances, including the coverage dispute and multiple claimants. The district court’s summary judgment for GEICO was affirmed. View "Martinez v. GEICO Casualty Company" on Justia Law

Bernard Perez, an ophthalmologist, entered into a disability insurance contract with MONY Life Insurance Company in 1988. After being diagnosed with throat cancer in 2011, Perez began receiving monthly disability benefits. MONY later suspected Perez of dishonesty in his disability claims and financial information, leading to the discontinuation of payments in February 2018. MONY sued Perez for unjust enrichment, and Perez counterclaimed for breach of contract.The Middle District of Florida held a nine-day trial where evidence showed Perez's deceitful conduct, including misrepresenting his ownership in his medical practice and overstating his physical ailments. The jury found in favor of MONY on the unjust enrichment claim, awarding $388,000, and rejected Perez's breach of contract counterclaim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under Florida law, an unjust enrichment claim cannot proceed when an express contract covers the same subject matter. Therefore, the district court erred in allowing the unjust enrichment claim to go to the jury. The Eleventh Circuit set aside the jury's verdict on this claim and directed the district court to vacate the judgment awarding MONY $448,930.06.Regarding Perez's breach of contract counterclaim, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court erred in failing to interpret the ambiguous term "acceptable proof of loss" in the insurance contract. However, this error was deemed harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly showed Perez's dishonesty in his proofs of loss. Thus, the jury's verdict against Perez on his breach of contract counterclaim was affirmed. The court also affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings and denial of sanctions. View "MONY Life Insurance Co. v. Perez" on Justia Law

A property insurance dispute arose between a church in Albany, Georgia, and its insurer following storm damage in 2014. The church's property, which included asbestos tile roofs, was insured under an all-risks policy. After the storm, the insurer's adjuster estimated repair costs at $2,300, but the church's contractor estimated over $1.3 million for full roof replacement. The church sued for breach of contract and bad faith. In 2018, Hurricane Michael caused further damage, and the church filed a claim with a different insurer, obtaining a lower repair estimate. The original insurer argued that the church's failure to disclose this second claim constituted a material misrepresentation.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia excluded evidence of the alleged misrepresentation, finding it irrelevant. The jury awarded the church $1.75 million in damages, and the insurer's motion for a new trial was denied. The insurer appealed, arguing that the exclusion of misrepresentation evidence was erroneous and that the damages award was speculative and contrary to the policy terms.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It found that the insurer had waived its misrepresentation defense by not objecting during trial and by explicitly withdrawing the defense. The court also held that the jury's award, which included increased construction costs due to delays, was supported by sufficient evidence and did not constitute double recovery when combined with prejudgment interest. The court affirmed the district court's rulings and the jury's verdict. View "Central Baptist Church of Albany Georgia Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Kepali Group procured insurance for its fleet of vehicles through an agent at Brown & Brown of Florida, with Prime Property & Casualty Insurance Company issuing a commercial automobile policy for the period from January 23, 2019, to January 23, 2020. The policy included a provision for after-acquired vehicles, requiring notification within 30 days of acquisition for coverage. On December 6, 2019, a 2009 Toyota Sienna owned by Kepali was involved in an accident. Kepali had acquired the vehicle on September 30, 2019, and notified Brown to add it to the Prime policy. Prime issued a quote for the additional premium, but Kepali did not pay it, and Prime did not issue an endorsement for the vehicle.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that Brown was acting as Kepali’s agent, not Prime’s, when attempting to procure insurance for the 3985 Toyota. However, the court concluded that the vehicle was covered under the policy’s after-acquired auto provision because Kepali met the two conditions: Prime covered all of Kepali’s vehicles, and Kepali notified Prime within 30 days of acquiring the vehicle. The court ruled that Prime had a duty to defend Kepali and Mr. Rodriguez but deferred ruling on the duty to indemnify until the underlying suit was resolved. The court granted summary judgment against Kepali and Mr. Rodriguez on their reformation and promissory estoppel claims and dismissed the remaining claims as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court held that the after-acquired auto provision did not require payment of an additional premium within 30 days for coverage to continue. The court also found that the premium audit provision allowed Prime to compute the final premium and bill Kepali, and that Prime failed to perform this audit or send a bill. Therefore, Prime could not terminate coverage for non-payment without following the policy’s cancellation procedures. The court concluded that Prime had a duty to defend Kepali and Mr. Rodriguez in the underlying state court action. View "Prime Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Kepali Group, Inc." on Justia Law

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and others filed a lawsuit against Michael LaRocca and his associated chiropractic clinics, alleging that the clinics submitted fraudulent insurance claims for services that were not medically necessary. The clinics, owned by LaRocca, were operating under an exemption from Florida's Health Care Clinic Act, which requires clinics to be licensed unless they are wholly owned by licensed health care practitioners who are legally responsible for compliance with all federal and state laws.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied State Farm's motion for partial summary judgment, rejecting the argument that LaRocca's failure to ensure compliance with all laws invalidated the clinics' exemption and rendered their charges noncompensable. The court found that the term "legally responsible" did not impose an affirmative duty on LaRocca to ensure compliance with all laws but rather indicated accountability for violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the interpretation of "legally responsible" within the context of Florida's Health Care Clinic Act was a matter best decided by the Florida Supreme Court. The Eleventh Circuit certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court, seeking clarification on whether the term imposes an affirmative duty on clinic owners to ensure compliance with all federal and state laws to maintain their exemption status. The Eleventh Circuit deferred its decision pending the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. LaRocca" on Justia Law

The case involves a shooting incident at the Pride of St. Lucie Lodge 1189, Inc. (the "Lodge") on March 2, 2015, where Tanya Oliver was shot in the forehead and later died from her injuries. The Lodge was insured by Kinsale Insurance Company ("Kinsale"), which had a $50,000 policy sublimit for claims arising out of assault and battery. The Estate of Tanya Oliver sued the Lodge for negligent security, and a jury awarded damages exceeding $3.348 million.The Lodge and the Estate then sued Kinsale for common law bad faith under Florida law, claiming Kinsale breached its duty of good faith by failing to make a settlement offer within the policy limits before the Estate’s claim was filed. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment to Kinsale, concluding that Kinsale had no duty to initiate settlement negotiations because no reasonable jury could find that this was a case of "clear liability."The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Lodge and the Estate, a jury could reasonably find that Kinsale knew or should have known that liability was clear. The court noted that the Lodge's security guards had failed to prevent a second fight in the parking lot, which led to the shooting, and that Kinsale was aware of the severity of Oliver's injuries and the potential for damages far exceeding the policy limit.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for trial by jury, holding that a jury could reasonably find that Kinsale acted in bad faith by failing to tender its policy limit before the Estate filed suit. View "Kinsale Insurance Company v. Pride of St. Lucie Lodge 1189, Inc." on Justia Law

Kaufman Lynn Construction was hired to build a corporate campus for JM Family Enterprises in South Florida. Kaufman obtained a commercial general liability policy from Liberty Surplus Insurance to cover itself and its subcontractors. After completing several buildings, Tropical Storm Eta caused significant water damage to the completed structures. Kaufman sought indemnification from Liberty, which denied the claim based on the policy's Course of Construction Exclusion (COCE), stating that coverage did not apply until the entire project was completed. Kaufman disputed this and filed a lawsuit against its subcontractors and initiated a claims process with Liberty.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Liberty's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the COCE excluded coverage for the water damage because the entire project was not completed. The court also dismissed Kaufman's counterclaim for declaratory relief as duplicative and ruled that Kaufman's breach of contract counterclaim was moot. Additionally, the court dismissed Kaufman's reformation counterclaim for lack of standing, reasoning that Kaufman had not demonstrated a cognizable injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Kaufman had Article III standing to seek reformation of the policy, as it suffered a cognizable injury by receiving a policy different from what was bargained for. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the COCE precluded coverage for the water damage, as the entire project was not completed. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Liberty's motion for attorney's fees, as Liberty's settlement proposal did not comply with the requirements of Florida's offer of judgment statute and Rule 1.442(c)(2)(B). The case was remanded for further proceedings on the reformation counterclaim. View "Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Kaufman Lynn Construction, Inc." on Justia Law