Victory for insurance companies
A judge finds no entitlement to attorney fees in a new ruling out of Volusia County, and a Universal Property & Casualty case reversal underscores the importance of “prompt notice” provisions. It’s all in this week’s Legal Briefs.
Entitlement Denied: Circuit Court Judge Dennis Craig in Volusia County, Florida just entered an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees. This is a tremendous victory for. The underlying claim arose from a windstorm in 2022. Judge Craig ruled that Florida Statute section 627.428 was repealed on March 24, 2023. Therefore, no entitlement to fees exists since entitlement to fees does not vest until a final judgment or decree exists. The judgment can be located here. The law firm of Salmon & Salmon handled the case for Cypress Property & Casualty Insurance Company, calling the ruling “a tremendous victory” for the carrier.
“There is simply no bigger issue in terms of revenue facing Florida insurers. If 627.428 was repealed, all the attorney fee payments by Florida insurers to plaintiff lawyers since then have been voluntary,” according to the firm. Kimberly Salmon performed over one hundred hours of research on this issue after the statute’s repeal after the legislative session. Mrs. Salmon’s original article can be located here.
David Salmon then prepared an article a couple of months later regarding the legislature’s proper use of a Savings Clause, which the legislature did not use in relation to the repeal of Florida Statute section 627.428. That article can be located here. This saga will likely continue through the appellate courts.
Keep it Prompt: The recurring debate over what exactly constitutes a “prompt notice” provision has come up once again, this time in the case of Universal v. Thomas & Deborah Yager. When the homeowners experienced a leak in their roof in May 2020, they waited until August to notify their insurer, Universal Property & Casualty through a public adjuster. The couple was able to secure a $2,000 insurance payment for interior damage but were denied for roof repairs. After being sued for breach of contract, Universal began to fall back on its “prompt notice” clause defense, which states they have no duty to provide coverage if not given said “prompt notice” – contending the Yagers’ delay and use of a third party had hindered their investigation of the damages. The Yagers won over a trial court, which ruled that Universal had relinquished its right to enforce its notice clause due to the partial payment and awarded the homeowners a further $54,250.
In the following months, an appellate panel rejected the conclusion, stating partial payments are not a waiver of right to enforce policy conditions. The reversal is a procedural not substantive one, which means the dispute is not settled – Universal will simply have another chance to make their case, since their arguments were precluded in the initial findings.
LMA Newsletter of 4-28-25
