Managing Partner Michael Cassel has been published in the St. Thomas Law Review regarding his analysis of the legislative changes enacted by Senate Bill 2-A and its effect on attorney fees and bad faith litigation, including a complete history of the issues and the impact moving forward.

On February 1, 2024, the Supreme Court of Florida released its decision in American Coastal Insurance Company v. San Marco Villas Condominium Association, Inc. The San Marco opinion discusses, and attempts to resolve, the longstanding conflict between Florida appellate courts related to the completion of appraisal when coverage issues exist.

On May 3, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeals released their decision in Cole v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company.  The Cole opinion discusses the retroactive application of pre-suit notice requirement enact as part of section 627.70152, Florida Statutes.  While a more in-depth analysis of Senate Bills 76 (2021) and 2-A (2023) is forthcoming, this immediate preliminary examination is necessary due to the potential implications of the opinion.

On February 9, 2023, the Supreme Court of Florida released their decision in Parrish v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company.  The Parrish opinion firmly states that a public adjuster, including the president of a public adjusting company, cannot serve as a “disinterested" appraiser if they have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the appraisal.

On January 27, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeals released their decision in Cordero v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, Inc. While the case law regarding prompt notice of an insurance claim seems all but settled, the Cordero opinion expands upon the analysis as it pertains to when an insured must place the carrier on notice of a claim.

On April 13, 2022, the Fourth District Court of Appeals released their decision in Sharon Godfrey v. People’s Trust Insurance Company,[1] (hereinafter "Godfrey"). The Godfrey opinion discusses a shift in the burden to prove prejudice as it pertains to the failure to comply with conditions precedent to coverage in a homeowners insurance policy.

What was once a trilogy has become a tetralogy. On April 24, 2019, March 16, 2020, and April 1, 2021, we published articles regarding the decisions in Alvarez v. State Farm, [1] Beseler v. Avatar, [2] and Mezadieu v. Safepoint,[3] respectively, on the topic of material misrepresentations voiding coverage under insurance policies. 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. This position was somewhat vindicated after the release of the Mezadieu opinion where the court found intent was not required when the misrepresentation was material in light of extenuating circumstances wherein the insured testified that she knew $11,000 of the total estimated amount should not have been in there. It was and is our argument that the Mezadieu court ignored analysis of this fact in reaching their holding. Most recently, on June 2, 2021,[4] the Fourth District Court of Appeal released their opinion in the matter of Anchor Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Alex Trif and George Trif (hereinafter "Trif").[5] In Trif, the appellate court performed an in depth analysis regarding the requirement for intent when an insurance carrier seeks to utilize the concealment or fraud provision to void coverage. In doing so, the Trif court distinguished Mezadieu in a manner similar to that of our prior analysis. Once again, we stand firm and confident in our argument that 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.

As part of his pursuit of a Masters of Law (LLM) in Insurance Law, Michael Cassel has recently completed his dissertation on Sebo v. American Home Assurance and its effect on Florida's Multiple Peril Loss analysis.

Analysis and Interpretation by Michael 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.

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.