Thought Leadership

Federal Court Applies Blumberg to Distinguish Accrual of Negligence and Fiduciary Claims in Insurance Agent Dispute

Romero v. Kinsale Ins. Co., No. 25-20084-CIV, 2025 WL 837820 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2025)

In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida revisited the Florida Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling in Blumberg v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 790 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2002), to assess whether claims against a non-diverse insurance agent defendant were fraudulently joined. The district court distinguished between negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims based on whether the plaintiff’s alleged damages had accrued independently of a pending coverage dispute. While the negligence claim was deemed premature and contingent on a future denial of insurance coverage, the breach of fiduciary duty claim was found to assert immediate and independent harm. As a result, the court concluded that the joinder was not fraudulent and granted the motion to remand the case to state court.

The dispute in Blumberg concerned stolen sports cards, and the insured sued his agent for negligence in procuring a policy that did not cover the loss of the cards. In 2002, the court reasoned that, because the insured alleged his agent caused him no damages other than the amount at stake in his coverage dispute, he could only incur damages, if ever, at the conclusion of the coverage dispute—or once his right to sue the insurer expired. 

Since 2002, Florida courts have held that when an insured alleges that an agent caused damages that are independent of a coverage dispute, the claim against the agent accrues immediately, even if the ultimate and full extent of the damages remains uncertain.

In Romero v. Kinsale, the plaintiff sued for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence after allegedly tripping on an uneven sidewalk at a construction site. District Judge Altonaga analyzed the issue of whether a resident (non-diverse) defendant was fraudulently joined. If fraudulently joined, the federal court would dismiss the non-diverse defendant and deny any motion to remand the matter back to state court. 

Joinder is fraudulent where there is no possibility that the plaintiff can prove a cause of action against the non-diverse defendant. In Judge Altonaga’s analysis, she held that the plaintiff’s negligence claim—which entirely hinged on the plaintiff’s assertion that she might lose a coverage dispute—had not yet accrued. Therefore, the negligence claim, on its own, could not stand. 

However, in analyzing the breach of fiduciary duty allegations, Judge Altonaga ruled that, since the breach of fiduciary duty claim contained no conditional language tying liability to denial of coverage, the allegation is that there was immediate harm at the time the policy was procured. This allegation of immediate harm, independent of coverage, meant the breach of fiduciary claim was a potentially viable claim with ripe damages that had accrued. 

Thus, Judge Altonaga held that there was no fraudulent joinder because there was at least a possibility that a Florida court could find an independent cause of action against the resident defendant. The judge ultimately granted the motion to remand the case back to state court. 

_{Legal Update for Insurance Agents & Brokers- August 2025, 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 © 2025 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.}