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
Cassel & Cassel has joined the fight against insurance carriers taking advantage of insureds through the appraisal process addressed in State Farm Fla. Inc. Co. v. Sanders[1].
This week, Michael Cassel presented at the Windstorm Insurance Network ("WIND") 2021 Virtual Conference.
Michael Cassel presented to the Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters ("FAPIA") 2020 Conference held virtually.
Last week, Michael Cassel presented in the 2020 Civil Remedies Webinar with the Florida Justice Association.
Michael Cassel has been named one of South Florida Business Journal's 40 Under 40 for 2020.
Hillary Cassel and Michael Cassel have both been named as 2020 Rising Stars by Super Lawyers Magazine. This marks the fourth consecutive year for Michael and sixth consecutive year for Hillary.
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.
Cassel & Cassel, P.A., were recently retained by the Signature Grand, a Broward staple, to represent them in their claim for loss of business interruption. Click below to read the full complaint and check back for more updates on this unprecedented case. ![]()
On March 28, 2020, Hillary Cassel appeared on Law Talk Live, a weekly radio show hosted by Meldon Law. Mrs. Cassel discussed the implications of insurance coverage for business interruption as it relates to the ongoing pandemic that is Covid-19. Please click here to listen to the complete show.
|
Attorney BlogCategories
All
Archives
April 2022
|