Seth B. Altman

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed a Miami-Dade trial court’s order denying its motion for attorney’s fees. The motion was filed pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.79 (2025). Maria and Christopher Suarez (collectively, “Suarez”) sued for breach of contract arising out of a Hurricane Irma claim which allegedly caused damage to their home. Citizens denied the allegations and raised several affirmative defenses including failure to provide prompt notice and failure to provide requested documents.  Citizens served a proposal for settlement (PFS) in the amount of $100 to each plaintiff. Suarez did not accept the proposal. Citizens later filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. After judgment was entered in its favor, Citizens filed its motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees. Suarez opposed the motion arguing the offer was not made in good faith. The trial court agreed with Suarez. On appeal, the Third DCA found “the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Citizens' nominal offer was made in bad faith when Suarez's failure to comply with the insurance policy was a reasonable basis for Citizens to offer a nominal settlement amount” Citizens v Suarez, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1687a (2026) (citing § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2025)); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis Tein P.L., 277 So. 3d 299, 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) "The obligation of good faith merely insists that the offeror have some reasonable foundation on which to base an offer." In its ruling, the DCA rejected the trial court’s reasons for finding a lack of good faith. The first reason the trial court gave was that Citizens did not request any discovery prior to filing its PFS. The DCA found this was irrelevant because the basis for the nominal amount (Suarez’s failure to comply with the policy) was apparent prior to filing suit. “The standard as to whether an offer is made in good faith is whether the insurance company has a reasonable basis for a nominal offer, at the time the offer is made. The focus of the analysis is the substance of the reason given for the nominal offer and not on the timing of the offer itself” (Citizens v Suarez, supra.). The second reason the trial court gave was that the public adjuster’s estimate demonstrated that Citizens had substantial exposure in the case and, therefore, the offer was made in bad faith. The DCA pointed to State Farm Florida Insurance Company v. Laughlin-Alfonso, 118 So. 3d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), a case with analogous facts, in rejecting this rationale. There, the DCA did not afford any weight to the adjuster’s report. Instead, it found that the insured’s failure to comply was a reasonable basis for State Farm to believe its exposure was nominal. Based on the above, the Third DCA reversed the trial court’s order denying Citizens’ motion, finding it was made in good faith and remanded with instructions to grant the motion and set the amount of fees in favor of Citizens.