Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

March 14, 2017 | Blog Post| 2017 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.  These are only bills.  The text of these bills may change over their life and they are not the law unless and until passed and enacted.

SB 94

Insurance Appraisals and Umpires

Sponsored by State Senator Frank Artiles 

This bill seeks to amend numerous existing statutes, creating several new sections and repealing one. The bill pertains to insurance appraisals, appraisers, and umpires and sets forth, among other things:

  • licensure and appointment requirements of appraisal umpires;
  • licensure requirements for an adjuster when serving as an appraiser under certain conditions;
  • prohibition against certain disqualified persons from serving as an appraiser or umpire;
  • requirements upon persons applying for licensure as an umpire to submit fingerprints, and allowing the Department to obtain credit and character reports for certain applicants;
  • requirements of  continuing education for licensure as an umpire;
  • certain criteria for refusal, suspension, or revocation of an umpire’s license;
  • ethical standards for, and grounds for disqualification of, appraisal umpires.

If signed into law, the new language would take effect on October 1, 2017 and apply to appraisals requested on or after that date.  The full text of SB 94 may be found here:  http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/00094

SB 1038

Assignments of Benefits (AOB)

Sponsored by:   State Senators Dorothy L. Hukill and Kathleen Passidomo

The proposed definition of “assignment agreement” under the bill would be all-encompassing of any instrument that assigns post-loss property insurance benefits for services to repair, replace, mitigate, regardless of how such instrument is named.  The act would further:

  • prohibit award of attorney’s fees under sections 627.428 or 626.9378 in favor of any person or entity suing an insurer pursuant to an “assignment agreement;” 
  • require, for an “assignment agreement” to be valid that it: 1) be in writing and executed by all insureds; 2) include a penalty-free 7-business day cancellation provision; and 3) include a provision requiring the assignee to provide the “assignment agreement” to the insurer within 3 days after execution by any named insured; 
  • require, for an “assignment agreement” to be valid that it must not include: 1) a penalty or fee provision for rescission; 2) a check or mortgage processing fee; 3) a penalty or fee provision  for cancellation; or 4) an administrative fee provision;
  • dictate that failure to comply with the proposed act creates a presumption of prejudice against the insurer and shift the burden of proving no prejudice to the party seeking the benefits; 
  • require assignees or transferees maintain all records, cooperate fully with the insurer in investigation of the claim, provide records to the insurer, provide the assignment agreement to the insurer within 3 days, submit to examinations under oath and recorded statements by the insurer, and participate in appraisal; 
  • require that acceptance of an “assignment agreement” by an assignee would release the insured from any payment to the assignee arising from the loss, although the insured would remain responsible for the deductible. 

If signed into law, the act would create section 627.7151, Fla. Stat. and apply to “assignment agreements” executed after July 1, 2017.  The full text of the bill may be found here: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/1038/?Tab=BillText

HB 1421

Property Insurance Assignment Agreements

Sponsored by State Representatives James W. Grant and Rene Plasencia

Similar to SB 1038, this bill proposes a definition of “assignment agreement” which would be all-encompassing of any instrument that assigns post-loss property insurance benefits for services to repair, replace, mitigate.  If enacted, the proposed statute would further:

  • require assignees to provide a 21-day notice to the insurer and the insured of the intent to litigate pursuant to the “assignment agreement,” specifying the amount of damages and the amount claimed;
  • require insurers to have a procedure in place for the investigation of such claims once said notice is received;
  • require a formal response from the insurer to the foregoing notice;
  • limit recovery of attorney’s fees and costs in an action on an “assignment agreement” to this section and section 57.105.
  • entitle an assignee to attorney’s fees and costs if it prevails on a claims amount equal to or greater than the prejudgment settlement amount requested;
  • entitle the insurer to attorney’s fees and costs from the assignee if the insurer prevails and the amount awarded to the assignee is equal to or less than the prejudgment settlement amount offered by the insurer;
  • dictate no attorney’s fees be awarded to either party if the assignee prevails in an amount less than the prejudgment amount requested, but more that the prejudgment amount offered by the insurer;
  • require no “assignment agreement” be valid unless: 1) it is in writing and executed by all named insureds; 2) includes a penalty-free 7-business day written cancellation provision; 3) includes a provision requiring the assignee to provide the “assignment agreement” to the insurer within 3 days after execution by any named insured (with specified acceptable methods of delivery); 4) contain a written, itemized cost estimate of services; 5) includes proof of licensure by water remediation professionals and that their work be performed in accordance with the American National Standards Institute; 6) relate only to work performed; and 7) contain specified language in certain format as detailed in the section, placing the assignor on notice of his rights;
  • require an “assignment agreement” be invalid if it includes: 1) a penalty or fee provision for rescission; 2) a check or mortgage processing fee; 3) a penalty or fee provision  for cancellation; or 4) an administrative fee provision;
  • dictate that failure to comply with the proposed act creates a presumption of prejudice against the insurer and shift the burden of proving no prejudice to the party seeking the benefits. 
  • require assignees: 1) maintain all records of services provided; 2) cooperate with the insurer’s investigation; 3)provide requested documents to the insurer; 4) permit the insurer to conduct an examination related to the assignment and services provided; 5) deliver the executed assignment agreement to the insurer within 3 days; 6) provide the insurer an itemized, per-unit cost statement; 7) participate in appraisal or ADR; 8) provide current revised statements of scope of work or supplemental repairs; 8)guarantee the work is performed to accepted industry standards; 8) may not charge the insured more than the deductible unless other work is performed at the insured’s expense; may not pay more than $300 in referral fees;
  • require that acceptance of an “assignment agreement” by an assignee would release the insured from any payment to the assignee arising from the loss, although the insured would remain responsible for the deductible.   

If signed into law, the act would create section 627.7152, Fla. Stat. and apply to “assignment agreements” executed after July 1, 2017.  The full text of the bill may be found here: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/01421

SB 1218

Property Repair

Sponsored by State Senator Gary M. Farmer, Jr. 

This bill proposes amending section 468.8411, Fla. Stat. to define “professional water damage restorer” and “water damage restoration,” as well as amending section 468.8414, Fla. Stat. (pertaining to licensure of mold assessors and mold remediators), to require licensure of applicants qualified to practice water damage restoration.  As part of the licensing criteria, the proposed legislation would require persons applying be of good moral character, carry insurance required by section 428.8421, and satisfy IICRC S500 standards.  Persons who meet the definition of “professional water damage restorer” would be subject to the same penalties and prohibitions placed upon mold assessors and mold remediators under 468.8419.

In addition, the bill seeks to amend section 627.422, Fla. Stat. concerning assignments of policies to codify certain requirements and restrictions upon assignment of post-loss benefits under property policies.  The proposed language requires that post-loss assignments of benefits:

  • be in writing, delivered to the insurer within seven business days after execution of the agreement or seven days after termination of a declared state of emergency, whichever is later, and delivered through a specified reporting method as stated on the insurer’s website;
  • be limited to work performed by the assignee;
  • contain an accurate, up-to-date statement of the scope of work to be performed;
  • guarantee the work meets accepted industry standards;
  • not charge the insured more than the policy deductible;
  • not charge the insured directly, except for non-covered work;
  • not pay referral fees of more than $750;
  • for water claims, require the assignee to be licensed in accordance with the requirements of the previous language amending section 468.8411.

The proposed legislation would further require seven days advanced notice to the insurer before any lawsuit related to the assignment is initiated, and provide restrictions upon insurers’ use of preferred vendors.  If signed into law, the changes would take effect on July 1, 2017.  The full text of the bill may be found here:  http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/01218/?Tab=BillText

Stay tuned for the result of the submission of these bills at the end of the Legislative Session.

Diane M. Barnes-Reynolds

A Partner at Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP in Tampa, FL. Diane M. Barnes-Reynolds practices in our First-Party coverage department.

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 »
August 09, 2017 Blog PostTO FEE OR NOT TO FEE, THAT IS THE QUESTION: THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT FINDS COVERAGE FOR PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT SANCTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF UNDER AN AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY POLICY IN MACEDO II

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 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 »
May 19, 2017 Blog PostINSURANCE PROCEEDS PAYABLE TO TENANT DIVERTED TO PAY FOR PROPERTY OWNER'S BACK TAXES

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 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 »
February 16, 2017 Blog PostSurplus Insurers, Too, Can Rely on the Application to Interpret Policy

Section 627.419 of the Florida Statutes provides that “[e]very insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set forth in the policy and as amplified, extended, or modified by any application therefor or any rider or endorsement thereto.”  This statute has not applied to surplus lines insurers since the “Zota-fix” legislation of 2009, which generally exempted surplus lines insurers from Chapter 627.

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