|
Analysis and Interpretation by Michael A. Cassel
On April 24, 2019, and, again, on March 16, 2020, we published articles regarding the decisions in Alvarez v. State Farm[1] and Beseler v. Avatar,[2] respectively. The Alvarez opinion was being used for the proposition that an allegedly overinflated estimate is de facto fraud/material misrepresentation. We argued that this was not the case due to established case law culminating in the holding in Beseler. More recently, on March 26, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal released their opinion in the matter of Jennifer Mezadieu v. Safepoint Insurance Company (hereinafter "Mezadieu").[3] In Mezadieu, the appellate court analyzed whether a material misrepresentation even without an element of intent was sufficient to void coverage under the concealment or fraud provision of the governing policy. While the Mezadieu court found that coverage could be voided without intent, it is the particular facts of the case that lend themselves to such a finding. Overall, the position outlined in our prior articles remains unchanged: simply because an estimate is unilaterally deemed to be too high by an insurance company either in scope or price does not mean the insured has committed fraud or put forth a material misrepresentation sufficient to void coverage.
0 Comments
On May 13, 2020, the Third District Court of Appeal released their decision in Security First Insurance Company v. John Czelusniak (hereinafter “Czelusniak”).[1] The Czelusniak opinion discusses the application of the doctrine of anti-concurrent causation (hereinafter “ACC”) as it relates to exclusionary provisions in insurance policies.
As many of you know, on October 23, 2019, the Third District Court of Appeal released their opinion in Glendys Vazquez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (hereinafter "Vazquez").[1] This opinion contained some drastic and far reaching implications with regards to the application of Section 626.9744, Florida Statutes,[2] more colloquially referred to as the “Matching Statute,” as it relates to calculations of payment for replacement cost value versus actual cash value on claims.
Analysis and Interpretation by Michael A. Cassel
On July 24, 2019, the Third District Court of Appeal 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. 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.
|
Attorney BlogCategories
All
Archives
April 2021
|
|
|
Contact Us Presidential Circle 4000 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 685-S Hollywood, FL 33021 E-Mail: info@cassel.law Phone: (954) 589-5504 Fax: (954) 900-1768 Hablamos Español* Visit us on Social Media
|
All Rights Reserved · © 2020 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. Any 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.
*Spanish speakers are non-attorney staff assistants employed by Cassel & Cassel, P.A. The non-attorney staff assistants are not members of the State Bar of Florida and are not licensed to practice law. Los asistentes hispanoparlantes empleados por Cassel & Cassel, P.A., no son abogados. Nuestro personal no son miembros de la asociaciòn de abogados de la Florida, y no estàn licenciados para practicar la ley en el estado de la Florida.
*Spanish speakers are non-attorney staff assistants employed by Cassel & Cassel, P.A. The non-attorney staff assistants are not members of the State Bar of Florida and are not licensed to practice law. Los asistentes hispanoparlantes empleados por Cassel & Cassel, P.A., no son abogados. Nuestro personal no son miembros de la asociaciòn de abogados de la Florida, y no estàn licenciados para practicar la ley en el estado de la Florida.