.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Fifth District Court of Appeals overturned trial court’s dismissal of insured’s complaint as the policy’s loss payment provision included a provision for statutory interest.

Aymee Taylor v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 5D23-0243 (5th Fla. DCA, Apr. 12, 2024)

May 1, 2024

by Corey K. Setterlund

The insured suffered water damage caused by a overflowing sink. State Farm covered the loss, and the parties participated in the appraisal process. The appraisal determined additional monies were owed via an appraisal award, which State Farm timely paid. The insured sued State Farm for breach of contract for failure to pay statutory interest that accrued on the appraisal award; the complaint had two-counts, one for a contractual cause of action and the other for a statutory claim. State Farm moved to dismiss, and after the hearing, the trial court dismissed the insured’s complaint based on the limitation of private causes of action under Florida Statute § 627.70131(5). 

The Fifth District Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s dismissal of the insured’s complaint. The court reviewed the policy’s loss payment provision, which included a provision for statutory interest, stating that, if payment is made after 90 days of an initial claim, reopened claim, or supplemental claim and there were no factors outside of State Farm’s control, statutory interest would be paid in accordance with Florida Statute § 627.70131(5) [now known as § 627.70131(7)]. The court noted, while solely under § 627.70131(5) there may be a bar to a private cause of action, State Farm’s addition of language in the provision regarding payment of statutory interest, above and beyond a simple incorporation of § 627.70131(5) into the policy, makes a separate contractual right under the policy to interest paid in compliance with § 627.70131, granting an insured an independent cause of action, which allowed the insured’s complaint to survive State Farm’s motion to dismiss. 


 

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – May 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.