.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Failure to settle compensatory damages claim for policy limit, despite carve-out for punitive damages claim, amounts to bad-faith under totality of the circumstances standard.

Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, Appellant v. Rebecca L. Heikka, Appellee, Fla. 4th DCA, Nos. 4D2022-2969 and 4D2023-1916, Nov. 6, 2024; Consolidated Appeals from Circuit Court for 17th Judicial Cir., Broward Co., Judge C.A. Rodriguez, Case No. CACE 07-008440

December 1, 2024

by Seth B. Altman

In the first phase of these consolidated appeals, Safeco appealed the final judgment following a directed verdict in Heikka’s favor in her bad-faith claim against Safeco. 

Heikka had been a passenger on a motorcycle that was rear-ended by Safeco’s insured, who was later convicted for driving under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of an accident. Heikka suffered severe injuries. 

Safeco’s insured had a policy with a $25,000 limit for bodily injury. Prior to Heikka filing a lawsuit, her attorney and Safeco’s adjuster had been in communication regarding tender of the policy limit and a settlement release. The adjuster sent a release of all claims and a check for $25,000 to plaintiff’s counsel. However, plaintiff’s counsel wanted the release to make an exception for punitive damages or claims against anyone else; therefore, Heikka could not accept the release by Safeco without the requested carve-outs/exceptions as the insured’s policy did not cover punitive damages, and any uninsured or underinsured motorist claim would have been brought against Heikka’s own insurer and not against Safeco. Heikka’s attorney returned the release with the requested revisions. According to Heikka’s attorney, Safeco agreed to his changes. Safeco denied ever receiving the release. 

Heikka’s attorney cashed the check and later filed suit against Safeco for compensatory damages as a predicate to amending to seek punitive damages. Safeco retained counsel for the insured, who advised the insured of his exposure and options. Safeco, believing Heikka agreed to the original release, moved to enforce settlement. In turn, Heikka’s attorney demanded his version of the release—which excluded punitive damages and any other parties—be honored per the prior agreement. He also warned, if his amended release was not accepted, a bad-faith suit would be filed. 

Safeco sought to enforce its release in a declaratory action. The court found no settlement as there was no meeting of the minds, and Heikka was allowed to proceed on both compensatory and punitive damages. 

At trial, the jury returned a verdict of $1,169,292.83 in compensatory damages but did not award punitive damages. Heikka then moved to amend her complaint to add statutory and common law bad-faith claims. 

A trial on the bad-faith claim then ensued, and a directed verdict was entered in favor of Heikka.

On appeal, Safeco argued it could not settle with a carve-out and leave punitive damages open against the insured because its policy did not cover punitive damages. The Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed with Safeco under the “totality of circumstances” standard. The obligation to settle in good faith requires an insurer to do more than just initiate settlement discussions. Had Safeco analyzed their insured’s potential exposure to a punitive damage claim versus the exposure on a compensatory damage claim and put itself in the shoes of its insured, it would have agreed to settle with the carve-out. The District Court concluded, “Safeco failed to fulfill its duties to act in good faith in accordance with Boston Old Colony [Insurance Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980)] when it refused Heikka’s offer to settle her compensatory damages claim for the policy limits, subject to a carve-out for punitive damages. In doing so, Safeco increased the exposure of its insured, as he faced the possibility of both an excess compensatory damages judgment and punitive damages judgment against him.” The directed verdict and judgment were affirmed.

In the second phase of these consolidated appeals, Safeco also appealed the denial of its disqualification motion and the subsequent granting of Heikka’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. 

Safeco had moved to disqualify Judge Rodriguez following the directed verdict based on the judge’s inappropriate conduct during the trial. The trial court denied the motion and then awarded attorney’s fees and costs to Heikka’s attorneys. 

On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that Safeco’s motion should have been granted and then reversed the attorney’s fees and costs judgment entered after the erroneous denial of the motion to disqualify. Although Judge Rodriguez engaged in certain conduct which required disqualification, the District Court ruled that reversal of the directed verdict itself was not required. It reviewed the verdict de novo, removing any perceived bias/taint from Judge Rodriguez, and upheld the directed verdict. However, any subsequent proceedings, such as the motion for attorney’s fees and costs, required assignment of a new judge. 

The court also noted that Judge Rodriguez’s assessment of attorney’s fees and costs for the underlying tort litigation was error as a matter of law as Sec. 624.155 does not provide for a plaintiff to recover its own fees for prosecution of the tort suit. Therefore, Judge Rodriguez’s award of $825,000 in fees/costs was reversed, and the court directed a successor judge be appointed to hear all subsequent issues, including the attorney’s fees and costs, but not for the underlying tort litigation. 

 

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – December 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

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Event

Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC)

Sean and Alex will present, "Life Care Plans: From Low Impact to Policy Limits," focusing on the history and expanding use of life care plans in litigation and their ability to transform low impact injury claims to disproportionate high value claims. By focusing on the limitations of life care planners, Florida's tort-reform on medical damages, and the Daubert standard, extraordinary life care plans with inflated future medical care recommendations can be defended.

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.