Florida Property Insurance Law

By Karma Hall, Esq. In  Florida Peninsula Ins. Co. v. Brunner , No. 3D15-1677 (June 08, 2016), Florida's Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Florida Peninsula Ins. Co.'s motion for attorney’s fees based on a proposal for settlement which "purported to impose liability for an indeterminate category of 'other claims of third parties' on the [insured's] counsel, a non-party in the underlying suit.  In reaching its decision, the 3d DCA reasoned: "The fatal flaw in the present case has already been described: Paragraph 7(b) of the proposal purports to require Ms. Brunner’s counsel to agree not only to assure that counsel’s own legal claims to the settlement funds are extinguished, butalso to assure that counsel will satisfy and extinguish 'other claims of thirdparties.' Yet there is no signature block or other provision to indicate her attorney’s agreement to assume such an open-ended liability. A proposal...

By Karma Hall, Esq.  In Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Association, Inc. v. QBE Insurance Corp., No. SC09-441, (May 31, 2012), the Florida Supreme Court was called upon to decide (among other certified questions*) whether an insured may bring a common law claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing separate and apart from a claim for statutory bad faith. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court, explaining that “[n]o Florida court has explicitly held that an insured may bring a claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing for an insurer’s failure to investigate and assess its insured’s claim within a reasonable period of time.” Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Association, Inc. v. QBE Insurance Corp., 561 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2009). On the other hand, the court noted “[n]or do we believe that the Florida courts have decisively held that a statutory bad faith...

By Karma Hall, Esq. In Kroener v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association , Case Nos. 4D09-3604 & 4D09-4102 (Fla. 4th DCA June 22, 2011), Florida’s Fourth DCA was called upon to decide, as a matter of first impression in Florida, whether entry of final summary judgment would preclude a party’s ability to accept a pending proposal for settlement. In the underlying litigation, the trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment on several theories, one of which had not been previously considered in Florida. The issue of whether a party may accept a pending proposal for settlement after entry of final summary judgment arose after the undisputed facts revealed that the insurer had served a proposal for settlement to the insureds on June 9, 2009, one day prior to a hearing on the carrier’s motion for summary judgment. On June 10, 2009, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, and final judgment was entered on June 18, 2009. On June 22, 2009, ...