.

Legal Updates for Insurance Services

Property Insurance Reform Laws Passed in Florida-Now What?

Legal Updates for Insurance Services – Florida Alert – December 20, 2022

December 20, 2022

by Michael A. Packer

On December 16, 2022, Florida Governor DeSantis signed into law potentially historic insurance reform, commonly referred to as SB 2A. This comprehensive and sweeping legislation will require insurance companies to investigate claims more efficiently, while changing the landscape in which first-party property claims are litigated into the future. Unless otherwise stated expressly, the provisions in SB 2A take effect on December 16, 2022 (the date the act became law). The following provisions of the new and amended laws* will most significantly impact insurance companies and insurance litigation.

BAD FAITH

  • FS 624.1551 was amended to address the dilemma carriers faced paying an appraisal award after a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (CRN) has expired. Under the amended statute, an insured will only be permitted to bring a bad faith action where the property insurer breached the insurance contract and a final judgment or decree has been rendered against the insurer. Further, the acceptance of an offer of judgment under s. 768.79 or the payment of an appraisal award does not constitute an adverse adjudication under this section.

ATTORNEY FEES

  • Florida Statute 626.9373, subsections (1) and (3) which apply to suits brought against surplus lines carriers, are amended to eliminate any rights to attorneys fees for suits arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy; 
  • Florida Statute 627.428(4) is amended to provide there is no right to attorneys’ fees in lawsuits which arise under a residential or commercial property insurance policy under this section. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, attorneys’ fees may still be awarded under Florida Statutes 57.105 and 768.79; 
  • The attorneys’ fees provisions and calculations contained in Florida Statute 627.70152, just enacted in 2021, have all been deleted from the statute and are no longer applicable to first party property claims arising under residential or commercial property insurance policies. This amendment is consistent with the legislative intent of the second special session of 2022, the elimination of the “one way” attorneys’ fees in first-party property litigation in Florida.

MODIFICATION OF TIME PERIODS TO TAKE ACTION

  • Florida Statute 627.71031 is amended to shorten the time periods in which the insurance companies must take certain actions (effective March 1, 2023):

(1)(a) Upon an insurer’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 7 (previously 14) calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication;

(3)(a) Unless otherwise provided by the policy of insurance or by law, within 7 days (previously 14) after an insurer receives proof-of-loss statements, the insurer shall begin such investigation as is reasonably necessary;

(3)(b) If such investigation involves a physical inspection of the property, the licensed adjuster assigned by the insurer must conduct any such physical inspection within 30 days after its receipt of the proof-of-loss statements;

(3)(e) The insurer must send the policyholder a copy of any detailed estimate of the amount of the loss within 7 days after the estimate is generated by an insurer’s adjuster;

(7)(a) Within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer.

  • Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)4. is amended to shorten the time for surplus lines carriers to make payment from 90 to 60 days from the date the insurer receives notice of of residential property damage claim unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).

TIME TO FILE CLAIM

  • Florida Statute 627.70132(2) is amended to shorten the time for an insured to report a new claim. Specifically, a claim or reopened claim, but not a supplemental claim, is barred unless notice of the claim was given to the insurer within one year (previously two years) after the date of loss. A supplemental claim is barred unless notice of the supplemental claim was given to the insurer within 18 months (previously three years) after the date of loss.

BINDING ARBITRATION

  • Another goal of the December 2022, special session was the creation of Florida Statute 627.70154, which permits insurance companies to issue property policies which contain mandatory binding arbitration endorsements to resolve disputes with policy holders. There are very specific requirements for the insurers that wish to incorporate mandatory binding arbitration into their policies, including reduced premiums; signed election forms; and the option to purchase a policy that does not include mandatory binding arbitration.

HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS

  • Effective March 1, 2023, pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7142, insurers will be required to amend the Homeowner Claims Bill of Rights to include the following:

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO:

3. Receive from your insurance company a copy of any detailed estimate of the amount of the loss within 7 days after the estimate is generated by the insurance company’s adjuster.

4. Within 60 (previously 90) days, subject to any dual interest noted in the policy, receive full settlement payment for your claim or payment of the undisputed portion of your claim, or your insurance company’s denial of your claim.

5. Receive payment of interest, as provided in s. 627.70131, Florida Statutes, from your insurance company, which begins accruing from the date your claim is filed if your insurance company does not pay full settlement of your initial, reopened, or supplemental claim or the undisputed portion of your claim or does not deny your claim within 60 (previously 90) days after your claim is filed.

OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

  • Florida Statute 768.79 (Offer of Judgment and Demand for Judgment) was amended to address recent appellate court decisions and subsection (6) was added to provide,

768.79(6) For a breach of contract action, a property insurer may make a joint offer of judgment or settlement that is conditioned on the mutual acceptance of all the joint offerees.

ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS

  • Finally, one of the most important aspects of the December 2022 special session was to once and for all address and eliminate “assignment of benefits” or “AOBs” in property damage claims. Accordingly, Florida Statute 627.7152, just enacted in 2019, was amended to eliminate AOBs in residential and property damage claims. Specifically, 

627.7152(2)(a)1. provides an assignment agreement must be executed under a residential property insurance policy or under a commercial property insurance policy, issued on or after July 1, 2019, and before January 1, 2023; and most importantly, 

627.7152(13) was added to state, except as provided in subsection (11)**, a policyholder may not assign, in whole or in part, any post-loss insurance benefit under any residential property insurance policy or under any commercial property insurance policy as that term is defined in s. 627.0625(1), issued on or after January 1, 2023. An attempt to assign post-loss property insurance benefits under such a policy is void, invalid, and unenforceable.

Readers are cautioned that the above information is intended to merely highlight the most significant portions of the amended and new property laws and is not intended to be comprehensive or complete. Recipients are encouraged to review the new and amended statutes in their entirety and contact us with specific questions about how they may apply to claims and policies.

 

Footnotes:

*The amendments primarily apply only to residential and commercial property damage claims.

**(11) This section does not apply to:

(a)An assignment, transfer, or conveyance granted to a subsequent purchaser of the property with an insurable interest in the property following a loss;

(b)A power of attorney under chapter 709 that grants to a management company, family member, guardian, or similarly situated person of an insured the authority to act on behalf of an insured as it relates to a property insurance claim; or

(c)Liability coverage under a property insurance policy.

 

Legal Updates for Insurance Services – Florida Alert – December 20, 2022, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

News

Christina Gonzales To Speak at the Women of Color Roundtable at DRI’s Diversity and Inclusion Seminar

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

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.

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

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. 

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

Thought Leadership

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.

News

Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.