.

Case Law Alerts

Objections to the Adequacy of a Civil Remedy Notice Can Be Waived

Vachon v. The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, Fla. 2d DCA, No. 2d2023-2674, Feb. 14, 2025

April 1, 2025

The Second District Court of Appeals considered whether an insurer can raise, as the basis of a motion to dismiss or as an affirmative defense, for the first time, compliance with the insured’s statutory requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155. 

Prior to filing a bad faith suit, the plaintiff served a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) on the defendant. The defendant sent a detailed response denying “all assertions of improper claim handling,” but did not comment on the sufficiency of the notice. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed suit and received a plaintiff’s verdict in his first-party suit for policy benefits. He then amended his complaint to add a bad faith claim. The defendant attempted to dismiss the action, which was denied, but then included the inadequacy of the CRN as an affirmative defense and moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The plaintiff appealed. 

The Second District Court of Appeal reasoned that “one can waive any contractual, statutory or constitutional right.” Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 395 So. 3d 294, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). This includes pre-litigation notices. Ingersoll v. Hoffman, 589 So. 2d 223, 224-25 (Fla. 1991). As it relates to a CRN response, an insurer that responds to the merits of a CRN without raising defects in the notice waives the right to later make any such objection. Neal v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 358 So. 3d 749, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); Bay, 395 So. 3d at 299; Evergreen Lakes HOA, Inc v. Lloyd’s Underwriters at London, 230 So. 3d 1, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Home Ins. Co. v. Owens, 573 So. 2d 343, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). 

The defendant attempted to circumvent the waiver doctrine by arguing it “should not apply when the alleged deficiencies in a CRN are more than ‘technical’.” However, the defendant could not provide any authority to support this distinction. Regardless, the District Court stated the defendant’s theory “defies logic” as “it is easier to infer a knowing waiver when a party fails to object to insufficiencies that are not merely technical.” Further, the District Court pointed to Ingersoll, where the Florida Supreme Court held that waiver can be applied to non-technical deficiencies in pre-suit notices. 

As a result, the District Court “easily concluded” the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant.  


 

Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

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.