|
Analysis and Interpretation by Michael A. Cassel
On July 24, 2019, the Third District Court of Appeals released their decision in State Farm Florida Insurance Company v. Charles and Diana Sanders,[1] (hereinafter "Sanders"). The Sanders opinion discusses whether a public adjuster can act as a disinterested appraiser.
3 Comments
Analysis and Interpretation by Michael A. Cassel
On May 8, 2019, the Fourth District Court of Appeals released their decision in Hershel Bryant and Betty Bryant v. GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company (hereinafter "Bryant"). The Bryant opinion discusses the payment of an appraisal award in suit operating as a confession of judgment and serving to ripen bad faith as well as the denial of payment operating as a waiver of compliance with post-loss conditions – namely the proof of loss requirement. Analysis and Interpretation by Michael A. Cassel
On April 17, 2019, the Third District Court of Appeals released their decision in Jose Alvarez and Hilda Alvarez v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company (hereinafter "Alvarez"). The Alvarez opinion discusses whether a verdict in favor the insureds should be invalidated based on the jury’s finding that the insureds intentionally and materially misrepresented the extent of the loss. Analysis and Interpretation by Michael A. Cassel
On April 17, 2019, the Third District Court of Appeals released their decision in Safepoint Insurance Company v. Daisy Sousa (hereinafter "Sousa"). The Sousa opinion discusses the requirement of compliance with post-loss conditions, namely the request for a Sworn Proof of Loss (hereinafter “SPOL”), prior to the ripeness of appraisal. Analysis and Interpretation by Michael A. Cassel
On July 25, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeals released their decision in Andrea Tracey and James Tracey v. People's Trust Insurance Company, (hereinafter "Tracey"). The Tracey opinion discusses the ability for an appraisal panel to determine causation for a denied portion of a claim when the claim has not been denied in its entirety. Analysis and Interpretation by Michael A. Cassel
On May 16, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeals released their decision in Carlos De La Rosa v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Company (hereinafter "De La Rosa"). The De La Rosa opinion discusses the prejudice analysis as it pertains to the failure to comply with the prompt notice requirement contained within the insured's homeowners insurance policy. On February 24, 2018, we presented our analysis and interpretation of the opinion in Hicks v. American Integrity. Due to the nature of the appeal, it was no surprise that American Integrity filed a motion for rehearing. On May 18, 2018, the Fifth District Court of Appeals denied American Integrity's request for rehearing and upheld its original opinion.
Analysis and Interpretation by Michael A. Cassel
On February 23, 2018, the Fifth District Court of Appeals released their decision in Hugh Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida (hereinafter "Hicks"). The Hicks opinion discusses the ambiguities inherent in the oft relied upon constant or repeated seepage exclusionary provision which is contained within most property insurance policies in the State of Florida. |
Attorney BlogArchives
March 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed
All Rights Reserved · © 2019 CASSEL & CASSEL, P.A. · Attorney Advertising
DISCLAIMER: The information contained on this website is intended as general information only and does not constitute, nor should it be taken as, legal advice. No information contained on this website should be relied upon without consulting with an attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which your matter arises. Laws and legal requirements change frequently and are subject to revision and interpretation. We make no representation, warranty, or claim that the information contained on this website is up to date. We are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the resources or information available at or from this website. The accounts of recent trials, verdicts, settlements, or results contained in this website are intended to illustrate the experience of the law firm. Prospective clients may not obtain the same or similar results as each case is unique and results will differ based on the particular facts and law applicable in each case. Nothing contained on this website constitutes a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of a specific legal matter. The services discussed on this website may not be available in all jurisdictions. The attorney responsible for this website is Michael Cassel, Esq.