Florida doesn’t acknowledge a first-party dangerous religion reason for motion at frequent legislation. Instead, it has a statutory scheme the place a proper discover (CRN) should be despatched that gives the precise statutory provisions that are violated, the related coverage language related to violations, and the info giving rise to the violations. Then, the insurance coverage firm will get 60 days to treatment the defects of its actions.
While I’ve mentioned these necessities in quite a few posts, I’d recommend studying, What Does a Property Insurance Policyholder Have To Do To File a Bad Faith Lawsuit In Florida?
One subject now raised in most of those statutory dangerous religion circumstances issues the specificity of the info alleged. One drawback with this requirement is that the policyholder usually doesn’t know the entire dangerous religion info, which the insurer secretly does. The policyholder merely is aware of that an inadequate quantity is just not totally or well timed being paid. Today, a Florida appellate court docket dominated on info that help a correct discover underneath the statutory requirement.1 The info of the case are as follows:
The Homeowners personal a house insured by United. In late 2018, the house suffered intensive water harm to the flooring, partitions, baseboards, and different constructing parts from a failed bathe pan within the grasp rest room. United acknowledged protection for the loss, decided the quantity of the loss was $2,640.08, and, after making use of the $2,500 deductible, paid the Homeowners $140.08.
The Homeowners disputed the estimate, arguing United considerably undervalued the loss, largely because of incapacity to match the prevailing ground tile. In February 2019, the Homeowners’ adjuster supplied United with an in depth estimate valuing the full quantity of the loss at $277,800.28.
Months later, the Homeowners’ adjuster supplied United with a ‘reduced’ estimate valuing the full quantity of the loss at $216,892.47. United finally despatched a second adjuster to the house and made a supplemental fee of solely $5,642.67.
The matter proceeded to appraisal, and, in August 2020, the Homeowners had been awarded $136,958.19 for precise money worth, and $142,010.97 for substitute money worth.
I recommend that the distinction between an preliminary estimate of $2,640.08 versus an precise money worth award of $136,958.19 screams of a doable dangerous religion adjustment by the insurer. Unfortunately, this presently goes on on a regular basis in Florida. Maybe there are good religion causes for the huge distinction, however anyone within the property claims enterprise would ask how the insurer was to this point off the adjustment and what occurred.
After the dangerous religion lawsuit was filed, the insurer then argued that the statutory discover was poor, and a trial court docket agreed the info alleged had been “unclear” as a result of they solely had “partial specificity” and “conclusory allegations.” The trial choose was reversed with the court docket reasoning as follows:
Here, the Homeowners’ CRN listed the precise statutory provisions that United allegedly violated, referenced the precise coverage language related to the violations, and gave an in depth recitation of the info surrounding the violation. In related half, the CRN acknowledged United gave ‘a lowball estimate that failed to include the floors at all, and otherwise under-scoped such items as drywall repairs and paint’ and ignored documentation exhibiting that extra funds had been owed. We maintain the CRN sufficiently complied with part 624.155(3)(b)’s specificity necessities and ‘sufficiently put [United] on notice of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violations and the corrective action required to remedy the violations.’ Zaleski, 315 So. 3d at 13 (reversing abstract judgment in favor of the insurer, and discovering the CRN defined the info and circumstances of the violation with specificity the place ‘the CRN stated that [the insurer] performed a cursory inspection of the property, failed to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, and gave a ‘lowball’ estimate that didn’t embody all lined damages’ and ‘the Homeowners provided [the insurer] with their detailed estimate’).
Regarding the trial court docket’s dedication that the CRN was invalid as a result of the ‘cure’ quantity was unclear, we reject this dedication as Florida legislation doesn’t require a CRN to incorporate a selected treatment quantity. See Fortune v. First Protective Ins. Co., 302 So. 3d 485, 491 (Fla. second DCA 2020) (‘Neither the statute nor this court’s precedent requires the CRN to comprise a certain amount sought to treatment the alleged dangerous religion.’); Hunt v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 112 So. 3d 547, 551 (Fla. second DCA 2013) (‘On its face, [section 624.155] does not require a specific cure amount. We are hesitant to impose a requirement beyond that directed by the legislature.’ (footnote omitted)); see additionally Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. second 1270, 1275 (Fla. 2000) (recognizing that an insurer’s acceptable response to a CRN is just not depending on a dedication of legal responsibility or damages, quite it ‘is based upon the insurer’s good-faith analysis of what’s owed on the insurance coverage contract’); King v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 4052271, (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2012) (‘Florida’s statute doesn’t require an insured on the CRN to allege a certain amount owed to treatment the violation by the insurer. . . . Rather, the CRN is designed to stop insurers from taking part in a ‘guessing game’ as to what, and the way, to treatment throughout the sixty-day window.’).
At any fee, it’s undisputed United obtained a duplicate of the Homeowners’ estimates, together with the second ‘reduced’ estimate, previous to the submitting of the CRN. United due to this fact clearly knew easy methods to treatment the alleged violation however the truth that the CRN didn’t comprise a selected treatment quantity and as an alternative typically acknowledged the estimated harm was greater than $50,000. Stated in a different way, ‘common sense suggests that the action [United] could have taken to cure the alleged violation would be to increase the amount offered to settle [the Homeowners’] declare.’ Altheim v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 161050 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2011).
How about “common sense” making use of to authorized reasoning?
The bottom-line lesson on this altering space of Florida dangerous religion legislation is that the higher apply is to make sure that the insurer is distributed estimates of the harm earlier than sending the civil treatment discover and to level to that reality within the discover.
I additionally wish to remind public adjusters that finishing and submitting a civil treatment discover is essential for policyholders who’re being handled unfairly by their insurance coverage corporations. Those mistreated policyholders ought to be referred to competent authorized counsel. The completion and submitting of the Civil Remedy Notice is the apply of legislation. It has turn into an more and more technical and troublesome space of the legislation that’s nonetheless in flux.
Thought For The Day
Thanksgiving dinners take eighteen hours to arrange. They are consumed in twelve minutes. Half-times take twelve minutes. This is just not coincidence.
—Erma Bombeck
_____________________________________________
1 Lugassy v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2D21-2929 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 23, 2022).