.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Third District Rules that an Appraisal Award Constitutes a Favorable Resolution in a First-Party Action for Benefits

Snappers Key Largo, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing to Policy No. BW33816281, Fla. 3d DCA, July 10, 2024, Case No. 3D23-1138

August 1, 2024

by Corey K. Setterlund

During the underlying litigation, an appraisal award was entered, and the appellant moved to amend the complaint to add a bad faith action pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155. The trial court denied this motion without explanation. The appellant then appealed, arguing that, without a finding of prejudice, abuse of privilege or futility, a denial of a motion to amend was in error. The appellee argued that the amendment would be futile because there was no breach of contract as the appellee complied with the subject insurance policy.

The Third District noted that a judgment on a breach of contract is not the only way to obtain a favorable resolution to fulfil the prerequisite of filing a bad faith claim, and that a cause of action for bad faith does not arise until the underlying first-party action for benefits is resolved favorably to the insured. Citing Trafalgar at Greenacres, Ltd. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., the Third District advised that the insured is not obligated to obtain a determination of liability and the full extent of the damage through a trial. The insured can utilize other means of doing so, including agreed settlement, arbitration or stipulation before pursuing a bad faith cause of action. 

The Third District also conveyed that precedent treats an arbitration award the same as an appraisal award for the purpose of deciding whether the underlying action was resolved favorably to the insured. Thus, the Third District ruled that an appraisal award constitutes a favorable resolution in a first-party action for benefits; therefore, the appellant satisfied the necessary prerequisite to pursuing a bad faith claim, reversing the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to amend complaint. 

It should be noted that this case was originally filed in 2018, so the Civil Remedy statute changes made in 2019, 2020 and 2023 are not applicable to this case, nor is Florida Statute § 624.1551, which was enacted in 2022.


Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – August 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.