.

Legal Updates for Insurance Services

Property Insurance Reform Laws Passed in Florida-Now What?

Legal Updates for Insurance Services – Florida Alert – December 20, 2022

December 20, 2022

by Michael A. Packer

On December 16, 2022, Florida Governor DeSantis signed into law potentially historic insurance reform, commonly referred to as SB 2A. This comprehensive and sweeping legislation will require insurance companies to investigate claims more efficiently, while changing the landscape in which first-party property claims are litigated into the future. Unless otherwise stated expressly, the provisions in SB 2A take effect on December 16, 2022 (the date the act became law). The following provisions of the new and amended laws* will most significantly impact insurance companies and insurance litigation.

BAD FAITH

  • FS 624.1551 was amended to address the dilemma carriers faced paying an appraisal award after a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (CRN) has expired. Under the amended statute, an insured will only be permitted to bring a bad faith action where the property insurer breached the insurance contract and a final judgment or decree has been rendered against the insurer. Further, the acceptance of an offer of judgment under s. 768.79 or the payment of an appraisal award does not constitute an adverse adjudication under this section.

ATTORNEY FEES

  • Florida Statute 626.9373, subsections (1) and (3) which apply to suits brought against surplus lines carriers, are amended to eliminate any rights to attorneys fees for suits arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy; 
  • Florida Statute 627.428(4) is amended to provide there is no right to attorneys’ fees in lawsuits which arise under a residential or commercial property insurance policy under this section. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, attorneys’ fees may still be awarded under Florida Statutes 57.105 and 768.79; 
  • The attorneys’ fees provisions and calculations contained in Florida Statute 627.70152, just enacted in 2021, have all been deleted from the statute and are no longer applicable to first party property claims arising under residential or commercial property insurance policies. This amendment is consistent with the legislative intent of the second special session of 2022, the elimination of the “one way” attorneys’ fees in first-party property litigation in Florida.

MODIFICATION OF TIME PERIODS TO TAKE ACTION

  • Florida Statute 627.71031 is amended to shorten the time periods in which the insurance companies must take certain actions (effective March 1, 2023):

(1)(a) Upon an insurer’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 7 (previously 14) calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication;

(3)(a) Unless otherwise provided by the policy of insurance or by law, within 7 days (previously 14) after an insurer receives proof-of-loss statements, the insurer shall begin such investigation as is reasonably necessary;

(3)(b) If such investigation involves a physical inspection of the property, the licensed adjuster assigned by the insurer must conduct any such physical inspection within 30 days after its receipt of the proof-of-loss statements;

(3)(e) The insurer must send the policyholder a copy of any detailed estimate of the amount of the loss within 7 days after the estimate is generated by an insurer’s adjuster;

(7)(a) Within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer.

  • Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)4. is amended to shorten the time for surplus lines carriers to make payment from 90 to 60 days from the date the insurer receives notice of of residential property damage claim unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).

TIME TO FILE CLAIM

  • Florida Statute 627.70132(2) is amended to shorten the time for an insured to report a new claim. Specifically, a claim or reopened claim, but not a supplemental claim, is barred unless notice of the claim was given to the insurer within one year (previously two years) after the date of loss. A supplemental claim is barred unless notice of the supplemental claim was given to the insurer within 18 months (previously three years) after the date of loss.

BINDING ARBITRATION

  • Another goal of the December 2022, special session was the creation of Florida Statute 627.70154, which permits insurance companies to issue property policies which contain mandatory binding arbitration endorsements to resolve disputes with policy holders. There are very specific requirements for the insurers that wish to incorporate mandatory binding arbitration into their policies, including reduced premiums; signed election forms; and the option to purchase a policy that does not include mandatory binding arbitration.

HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS

  • Effective March 1, 2023, pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7142, insurers will be required to amend the Homeowner Claims Bill of Rights to include the following:

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO:

3. Receive from your insurance company a copy of any detailed estimate of the amount of the loss within 7 days after the estimate is generated by the insurance company’s adjuster.

4. Within 60 (previously 90) days, subject to any dual interest noted in the policy, receive full settlement payment for your claim or payment of the undisputed portion of your claim, or your insurance company’s denial of your claim.

5. Receive payment of interest, as provided in s. 627.70131, Florida Statutes, from your insurance company, which begins accruing from the date your claim is filed if your insurance company does not pay full settlement of your initial, reopened, or supplemental claim or the undisputed portion of your claim or does not deny your claim within 60 (previously 90) days after your claim is filed.

OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

  • Florida Statute 768.79 (Offer of Judgment and Demand for Judgment) was amended to address recent appellate court decisions and subsection (6) was added to provide,

768.79(6) For a breach of contract action, a property insurer may make a joint offer of judgment or settlement that is conditioned on the mutual acceptance of all the joint offerees.

ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS

  • Finally, one of the most important aspects of the December 2022 special session was to once and for all address and eliminate “assignment of benefits” or “AOBs” in property damage claims. Accordingly, Florida Statute 627.7152, just enacted in 2019, was amended to eliminate AOBs in residential and property damage claims. Specifically, 

627.7152(2)(a)1. provides an assignment agreement must be executed under a residential property insurance policy or under a commercial property insurance policy, issued on or after July 1, 2019, and before January 1, 2023; and most importantly, 

627.7152(13) was added to state, except as provided in subsection (11)**, a policyholder may not assign, in whole or in part, any post-loss insurance benefit under any residential property insurance policy or under any commercial property insurance policy as that term is defined in s. 627.0625(1), issued on or after January 1, 2023. An attempt to assign post-loss property insurance benefits under such a policy is void, invalid, and unenforceable.

Readers are cautioned that the above information is intended to merely highlight the most significant portions of the amended and new property laws and is not intended to be comprehensive or complete. Recipients are encouraged to review the new and amended statutes in their entirety and contact us with specific questions about how they may apply to claims and policies.

 

Footnotes:

*The amendments primarily apply only to residential and commercial property damage claims.

**(11) This section does not apply to:

(a)An assignment, transfer, or conveyance granted to a subsequent purchaser of the property with an insurable interest in the property following a loss;

(b)A power of attorney under chapter 709 that grants to a management company, family member, guardian, or similarly situated person of an insured the authority to act on behalf of an insured as it relates to a property insurance claim; or

(c)Liability coverage under a property insurance policy.

 

Legal Updates for Insurance Services – Florida Alert – December 20, 2022, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Court Rejects Horizontal Immunity Defense to Company Not Acting as Statutory Subcontractor

The First District Court of Appeal held that a property management company was not entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in a negligence action brought by an employee of another company working on the property. The claimant was injured while servicing a swimming pool at an apartment complex. His employer had contracted with the property owner to maintain the pool. Following the accident, the claimant received workers' compensation benefits through his employer’s carrier. The claimant subsequently filed a negligence action against the property management company, alleging that it failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn him of a dangerous condition that caused his injuries. The property management company had been retained by the property owner to maintain the complex in good operating condition and to perform routine maintenance and repair work. The property management company argued that it was immune from suit under section 440.10(1)(e) of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law. That provision grants immunity to a subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work from civil actions brought by employees of another subcontractor, subject to limited exceptions. According to the property management company, it qualified as a subcontractor working on the same project as the claimant’s employer and was therefore entitled to horizontal immunity. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment in its favor. On appeal, however, the claimant argued, and the appellate court agreed, that horizontal immunity applies only when a contractor has sublet work arising from a contractual obligation owed to a third party. The court noted that prior decisions consistently held that an entity acting solely on its own behalf as the owner of property, rather than pursuant to a contract with a third party, is not a “contractor” under section 440.10(1), even when it hires other companies to perform work on the property. In Teed, the property management company could not establish that the property owner had a primary contractual obligation to a third party to maintain either the apartment complex or the swimming pool, which it then delegated to the claimant’s employer or the property management company. As a result, the property owner did not qualify as a statutory contractor, and the property management company was not a subcontractor entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e). The First District therefore reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings on the claimant’s negligence claim.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Holds That a Claimant Who Was Struck By a Car While Crossing the Street During an Unpaid Break Was In the Course and Scope of Employment

This case involved a claim petition filed by a claimant who sustained injuries after being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street in front of the employer’s premises. The employer denied the claim based on course and scope, as the accident occurred during one of two mandatory fifteen (15) minute breaks provided to the claimant. The claimant would punch out at the beginning of a break and punch back in when the break was over.  On the date of the incident, the claimant punched out and left the building to get lunch at a restaurant, which required her to cross the employer’s parking lot, and then a public street, where the injury occurred. The Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissed the petition, noting that that during the two mandatory fifteen-minute breaks per shift allowed by the employer, the claimant was free to leave the employer’s premises, and during breaks, permitted to engage in whatever activity she desired. The WCJ found that at the time of the accident, the claimant was on her own time, in the middle of the street, and going to get lunch.   The claimant filed an appeal with the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), and the Board reversed.  According to the Board, the claimant’s location was still on the employer’s premises, as the claimant was taking her customary route while using a reasonable ingress/egress from the employer.  Further, the Board found that the “Personal Comfort Doctrine” applied, as the claimant was on a momentary departure to take care of her personal comfort, within the window of time she was allotted for her break.  The Board remanded the case, and a WCJ granted the claim petition.  The Board affirmed, and the employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Before the Court, the employer argued that the claimant was not in the course and scope of her employment, because the injury did not occur on its premises, and the claimant was outside the bounds of the Personal Comfort Doctrine. The Court, however, rejected these arguments, and dismissed the employer’s appeal.  The Court noted that the break given to the claimant was so cursory, when she set out to relieve her hunger for her own personal comfort,  she remained in the course of her employment when she sustained her injuries.  A Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Supreme Court has been filed by the Employer, Giant Eagle.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Legislation Updates

Since June 1, 2026, there have been no new New Jersey workers’ compensation related cases from the Appellate or Supreme Courts. As such, below will highlight any new legislative updates since February. A1023 | S3984 - Medical Use of Cannabis Under Certain Circumstances This requires workers’ compensation, PIP, and health insurance coverage for the medical use of cannabis under certain circumstances. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. It was also introduced on March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. A1045  - Certain Injuries to Volunteer and Professional Public Safety and Law Enforcement Personnel This revises workers’ compensation coverage for certain injuries to volunteer and professional public safety and law enforcement personnel. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1384 | S2757 - Reduce Statute of Limitations in Medical Fee Disputes This reduces statute of limitations from six years to two years in medical fee disputes in workers’ compensation matters. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1870 | S1379 - Workers' Compensation Benefits For Certain Workers Due to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks This provides workers’ compensation benefits for certain public safety workers who developed illness or injury as result of responding to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On February 5, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. A2779 | S1521 - Excludes Certain Illegal Aliens This excludes certain illegal aliens from workers’ compensation and temporary disability benefits. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A2792 | S1555 -  Prevent Intoxicated Employees from Workers’ Compensation This prevents intoxicated employees from receiving workers’ compensation. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3167 | S2372 - Workers’ Compensation Insurance Requirements for Certain Corporations and Partnerships This concerns workers’ compensation insurance requirements for certain corporations and partnerships. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3548 | S3571 – Maximum Benefits for Certain Volunteers This provides certain volunteer and other workers with maximum compensation benefit for workers' compensation claim regardless of outside employment. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On March 2, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee. A3724 - Personal Liability to Employer Officers for Failure to Pay for Coverage This provides personal liability for owner, executive officer, or executive director of employer for failure to pay for workers' compensation coverage. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee. A4617  - Certain Workers' Compensation Supplemental Benefits and Funding Method This concerns certain workers' compensation supplemental benefits and funding method. For a permanently and totally disabled worker or surviving dependents after December 31, 1979, with some exceptions, this bill provides for an annual cost of living adjustment in the weekly workers’ compensation benefit rate. It was introduced on March 10, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. S241 - Inclusion in Database of Appointed Officials This requires that workers’ compensation judges and administrative law judges be included in database of appointed officials. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 to the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee. S2290 -  Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 72. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. S3144 - Testimony in Workers’ Compensation This concerns submission of testimony in workers’ compensation claims. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. S3342  - Increase Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 75. It was introduced on February 5, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars