Why timely civil remedy notices matter
A Florida appellate court provides clarity on a case involving a late-delivered civil remedy notice, and a class action lawsuit against State Farm over its use of Xactimate software is itself over. It’s all in this week’s Legal Briefs.
Bad Faith or Bad Timing? Late last month, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal found that simply filing a civil remedy notice (CRN) does not constitute a timely notice to an insurer under the pre-2020 version of Florida Statutes Section 624.155 and so ended a bad-faith lawsuit. Progressive v. Gonzalez started back in 2018, when the insured first filed their CRN regarding the handling of an uninsured motorist claim and then backed this up with a lawsuit for statutory first-party bad faith. Progressive was given notice of the CRN filing 75 days after it was filed with the Department of Financial Services (DFS), and 15 days after the bad faith lawsuit was filed. Progressive asked for summary judgment but the trial court denied it, reasoning that Section 624.155 did not specify who was responsible for providing the notice and that Progressive had access to the DFS website where the CRN was posted. The 3rd DCA ruled in favor of Progressive and specifically “reject(ed) the argument that (courts) should read into the statute a requirement that the insurer monitor the Department’s website to search for notices filed with the Department.”
Xactimate Class Action: Pennsylvania homeowners who filed a class action lawsuit against State Farm for bad faith, fraud, and deceptive business practices were met with a case dismissal in late March, after claiming the insurer undervalued their property claims. According to lead plaintiffs Jaime and Becky Belotti, State Farm treated their home damage repair as a “new construction,” when they should have been considered for “repair/reconstruction” in its use of Verisk’s Xactimate software. While the couple ultimately received the payout they requested following an appraisal process, the initial difference in payout led to their concerns related to failure to use a specific method of loss computation through Xactimate. Both State Farm and Judge Joseph F. Saporito did not find any policy language concerning a method of computation let alone a specific method, such as Xactimate. While the parties were initially about $200,000 apart in their cost estimates, the judge did not find this sufficient evidence to be considered acting in bad faith and subsequently granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment.
LMA Newsletter of 4-14-25
