Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

February 21, 2019 | Blog Post| Not 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.

Puerto Rico had not been impacted by a major storm since Hurricane Georges in 1998, and before that, Hugo in ‘89. In the wake of Irma and Maria, the tropical island’s infrastructure was devastated, and the insurance industry shaken. As of July 31, 2018, an estimated 276, 313 new insurance claims had been filed, some 179,970 of which were for residential property damage.1

Two days before the one-year anniversary of Maria’s landfall, on September 18, 2018 –that is on the eve of the expiration of the one-year Suit Against Us timeframe -- Michael Pierluisi, as Secretary of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DACO, per its Spanish acronym) sued 16 insurers 2 on behalf of a putative class of insured consumers whose claims had not been resolved as they had expected. The Government also asked that the Class include all future potential claimants, who were at risk of forever losing access to judicial redress, as the one-year statute of repose was about to lapse.3

That same day, the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCS) also sued those same 16 insurers.4 OCS asked the Court to interpret the Defendants’ Suit Against Us Policy Provisions. At issue was whether the one-year period within which an insured homeowner had to file suit, could be tolled – that is, if the Suit Against Us provision provided a statute of limitations, or if, as most insurers argued, the one-year period operated as a statute of repose5, which could not be tolled. The Court consolidated both litigations. The Suit Against Us provision at issue reads:

Suit Against Us. No action can be brought unless the policy provisions have been complied with and the action is started within one year after the date of loss.

On February 14, 2019, Insurers serving the Puerto Rican market, who had thought that thousands of Hurricane Irma and Maria claims were time-barred, were in for a surprise -- and not a sweet one.

That day, the Trial Court in San Juan entered Final Judgment in the highly publicized and much-litigated case of Michael Pierluisi, as Secretary of the Department of Consumer Affairs et als. v. MAPFRE PRAICO Ins. Co et als., SJ2018CV07570. The Complaint alleged breach of contract, failure to pay, undue delay, damages, and pain and mental anguish. It was part of the Puerto Rican Government’s two-fold strategy to address the insurance market’s response to an unprecedented number of claims.6

In the backdrop, Puerto Rican families were still not back into their homes and the resolution of claims had been slower than anticipated. The judiciary struggled to handle the litigation overload. Blue FEMA tarps were still the only thing keeping tropical rainwater out of an astonishing number of homes. The Insurance Company Association, ACODESE (per its Spanish acronym) reported that, within the year, its members had received some 240,999 claims, of which 156,659 were closed with payment – for an overall payout reaching $3,328,390,065. Some other 75,213 claims had not been paid.7

The Legislature steps in and resolves the issue of time-bar while the parties litigate

During the course of the DACO/OCS litigation, on November 27, 2018, the Puerto Rican Legislature put the issue to rest, by enacting Law 242-2018. With the clear purpose of protecting the interests of insured consumers and addressing the perceived deficiencies in the existing statutes, lawmakers amended Article 11.190 of the Insurance Code.8 As of that day, the one-year time frame to sue would officially operate as a statute of limitations, construed pursuant to Article 1873 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code.9 Insureds would no longer have to file suit to preserve their unresolved claims. From now on, the yearly limitation period could be tolled through informal, extrajudicial notice, such as making a claim with the insurer or the agent. And any contractual clause providing otherwise would be null and void. Most importantly, the lawmakers also gave retroactive effect to the amendment, making it applicable to Maria and Irma Claims.

Before the enactment of this new law, the insurers’ general stance had been that their Suit Against Us provision fatally limited the period within which to sue to one year, operating as a statute of repose. Thus, Hurricane Irma and Maria first-party, residential property claims that had not become lawsuits within a year of the date of loss, would have been considered time-barred.  

The Puerto Rico Civil Code dedicates Chapter 409 to the Limitations of Actions.10 Actions for breach of contract that do not otherwise have a specific codified time frame (i.e. through other code articles or special statute) usually are subject to a 15-year limitations term, per Article 1864.11 The 15-year period runs from the date the cause of action becomes available12, can easily be tolled, and may be shortened or extended, by agreement of the parties, as long as the variation does not run afoul the law, morals, or public policy.13 Thus, the stance adopted by the insurers allowed them to avoid exposure to otherwise lengthy limitations periods, and repeated tolling that would have extended the period within which to sue in a potentially unmanageable manner.

The San Juan Trial Court entered Final Judgment and dismissed the consolidated DACO/OCS case, with prejudice, on mootness grounds. By virtue of the enactment of Law 242-2018, there no longer was a justiciable case and controversy to rule upon. Any doubts as to whether the one-year period was a limitations or repose timeframe had already been resolved by the Legislature, and the Court declared it had no authority to adjudicate.

Citing to Puerto Rico Supreme Court constitutional precedent14 and Spanish interpretive Doctrine, the Court found that the lawmakers had specifically intended for the amendment to apply retroactively, to all Irma and Maria claims.  In dicta, the Court seemed to adopt the notion - in a blow to insurers – that, in the aftermath of such an atmospheric catastrophe, the balance of equities between public interest and the impairment of private, acquired rights, justified the ex-post facto application of the amendment. The Court also distinguished between the expectations a party has regarding its rights, and whether those expectations truly constitute an acquired right. The mere expectation of entitlement to a right would be of lesser weight than a fully acquired right, when balancing it against a substantial public interest. Albeit discretely, the Court appeared to suggest that, in an ex-post facto context, the insurers’ expected rights would yield to the public interest in rebuilding the island and repairing its citizens’ homes.

This First Instance Judgment is now subject to post-judgment motions, and appeal. The Trial Court set the basis for Certification of the issue to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court as one of high public interest. To note, on September 18, 2018, the same day DACO and OCS sued; the Puerto Rico Supreme Court in Guardiola Rodriguez et als. v. Cooperativa de Seguros Multiples CT-2018-09, had declined to hear a Petition for An Extraordinary Writ, for Intrajurisdictional Certification 15 and seeking an Order in Aid of the Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction.16 In that case, two homeowners had requested a declaration that the Suit Against Us provision was null and void, or in the alternative, that the Court resolve the ambiguity in the provision.  

In a 5-4 decision, the split Court denied the writ, for lack of a justiciable controversy, declining to issue an advisory opinion on this issue of first impression. While, at the time, the Court refused to exercise jurisdiction, the dissenting vote, with special written opinion, adopted by four Justices who would have issued the writ, seems to have paved the way for the 16 DACO/OCS defendants to raise the issue. The many constitutional issues at play, the stability of contracts and retroactive impact of the law are cause for concern. It should also be noted that Law 242-2018 did not stop there. Appraisal would become available, the scope of appraisal and role of the appraiser were defined, and new insurance dispute courts were created.

The potential repercussions on insurers doing business in Puerto Rico are daunting. No longer protected by the Suit Against Us provision as a contractual, once iron-clad one-year bar to suit, they now should brace for a wave of new litigation. The local insurance industry has sustained many changes in the wake of the deadliest – and most expensive -- hurricane to hit the Island.  With at least one well known Florida Plaintiff firm setting up shop in Puerto Rico, vocally and very publicly arguing for the insureds, Plaintiff-driven litigators have been circling Puerto Rico’s sunny, blue skies.

While the final outcome of this Judgment is still uncertain, there most certainly is trouble in paradise.

1 See Michael Pierluisi, as Secretary of the Department of Consumer Affairs et als. v. MAPFRE PRAICO Ins. Co et als., SJ2018CV07570, at para. 38, p. 13..

2 The original defendants were Mapfre Insurance Company; Universal Insurance Company; Multinational Insurance Company; Triple-S Propiedad, Inc.; One Alliance Insurance Corporation; Antilles Insurance Company; United Surety and Indemnity Company; QBE Seguros; Real Legacy Assurance Company, Inc.; Integrand Assurance Company; Chubb Insurance Company of Puerto Rico; Caribbean American Property Insurance Company; MAPFRE Pan American Insurance Company; AIG Insurance Company- Puerto Rico; and Cooperativa de Seguros Múltiples de Puerto Rico.

3 See Michael Pierluisi, as Secretary of the Department of Consumer Affairs et als. v. MAPFRE PRAICO Ins. Co et als., SJ2018CV07570, before the Court of First Instance, San Juan Judicial Region, Higher Court.

4 Case SJ2018CV0016, before the Court of First Instance, San Juan Judicial Region, Higher Court.

5 Statute of Limitations is loosely used as an equivalent for “término de prescricpción” and Statute of Repose, for “término de caducidad”, while the legal and substantive nuances between the Civil Law concepts and their Common Law counterparts.

6 See, e.g., AP News: Puerto Rico Sues Insurance Companies Amid Unresolved Claims. First published September 18, 2018. https://apnews.com/aca22421b73e4ad8b0bbcd9c78631668. (Last visited February 19, 2019.)

7 See Oscar J. Serrano, for Notice: Supremo rechaza aclarar cuánto tiempo es que hay para reclamaciones a seguros, first published September 18, 2018. https://www.noticel.com/ahora/tribunales/supremo-rechaza-aclarar-cuanto-tiempo-es-que-hay-para-reclamaciones-a-seguros/796772963 (last visited February 19, 2019.)

8 26 P.R. Laws Ann. § 1190. See also, Statement of Motives of Law 242-2018 of November 27, 2018, Sen. Bill 1054.

9 Civ. Cod. P.R., Art. 1873, 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5303.

10 See P.R. Civ. Cod.. 5261–5304.

11 See Art. 1864  P.R. Civ. Cod., 31 P.R. Laws Ann. §5294.

12 See Art. 1869 .R. Civ. Cod., 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5299..

13 See generally R.P. Farnsworth & Co. v. P.R. Urban Renewal & Housing Corp., 289 F. Supp. 666 (P.R. Dist. Ct. 1968). To note, courts have often struggled with translating prescripción and caducidad. The Farnsworth Court referred to “prescription” and “caducity”. We have chosen to refer to, by analogy, statutes of limitations and of repose, despite the many variations between those concepts. 

14 See e.g. Consejo de Titulares v. Williams Hospitality, 168 D.P.R. 101, 107 (2006)

15 The Puerto Rico Judiciary Act of 2003 provides that the Supreme Court, ordinarily a court of last resort may exercise jurisdiction by way of exception:

Through a writ of certification, it shall be able to take cognizance of any matter certified to it by the United States Supreme Court, a United States Circuit Court of Appeals, a United States District Court, or the highest court of appeals of any of the states of the United States of America, as well as by the lower courts of the states of the United States of America, when thus requested by any of said courts, if there is any judiciary matter before the requesting court in which matters pertaining to Puerto Rican law are involved that may determine the outcome thereof, and with regard to which, in the opinion of the petitioning court, there are no clear precedents in the jurisprudence of said court. See 4 P.R. Laws Ann. § 24s(f) (emphasis added).

16 The Motion for Temporary Order in Aid of Jurisdiction stems from Rule 28 of the Rules of The Puerto Rico Supreme Court. See 4 P.R.Laws Ann. Ap. XXI-B, R & 28 (2012):

(a)  The Court may issue a temporary order in aid of jurisdiction when it is necessary to assert its jurisdiction in a matter pending its consideration. For purposes of this Rule, it shall be understood that the Court, not subject to the ordinary proceedings, will entertain any matter related to the appeal filed or pending, in order to avoid any adverse consequence that may affect its jurisdiction or that may cause substantial harm to a party while resolving the appeal.

. . .

(c)  The orders mentioned in this Rule may be issued motu proprio or on motion of a party.

Thais Passeriu | ASSOCIATE

Extra-Contractual, First-Party Coverage and Third-Party Coverage

(813) 281-1900 | TAMPA

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 »

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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »

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 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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
February 10, 2015 Blog PostDoes Florida's statutory duty to disclose insurance information apply to claims arising under out-of-state policies?

One of the most common questions I get from out-of-state insurers is whether they are required to honor a 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.

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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »