Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed a purported class action challenging their insurer's interpretation of Fla. Stat. 627.736(1)(a)(3)–(4). In consolidated appeals, plaintiffs presented the issue of what the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, Fla. Stat. 627.730–627.7405, places on an insured’s personal injury protection (PIP) benefits where no medical provider has made any determination about whether the insured’s injury was an emergency medical condition. The legislative history clearly shows that the Florida legislature sought to reduce fraudulent claims by making the full $10,000 amount of benefits available only to those insureds who suffered severe injuries, a restriction defined into the term “emergency medical condition.” The court held that Fla. Stat. 627.736, as amended, limits an insurer’s obligation to provide personal injury protection benefits to $2,500, unless one of the medical providers listed in subparagraph (1)(a)(3) has determined that the injured person had an emergency medical condition. Because neither plaintiffs' claim was supported by such a determination, neither insurer violated Fla. Stat. 627.736 by limiting benefits to $2,500. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the suits. View "Robbins v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against 21st Century, alleging that the insurance company acted in bad faith towards its insured. The district court granted judgment in favor of 21st Century. The court held that an insurer owes no duty under Florida law to enter into a so-called Cunningham agreement and likewise owes no duty to its insured to enter into a consent judgment in excess of the limits of its policy. In this case, the district court correctly precluded plaintiffs from introducing evidence of a settlement opportunity letter in support of their bad-faith claim. The court further concluded that this is true whether the court applies the de novo standard of review advocated by plaintiffs or the abuse-of-discretion standard asserted by 21st Century. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kropilak v. 21st Century Ins. Co." on Justia Law