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.

Hillary Cassel,  Michael Cassel, and Alex Zatik have all been featured in the 2021 edition of Florida Super Lawyers Magazine. Hillary was named as a Florida Super Lawyer for the first time after six consecutive years as a Rising Star. Michael and Alex were both named as Rising Stars. This marks the fifth consecutive year for Michael and the first year for Alex.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On April 24, 2019, we posted about the Third District Court of Appeal decision in Jose Alvarez and Hilda Alvarez v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company ("Alvarez").[1] Since then, we have seen, for lack of a better term in today’s climate, an epidemic of reliance on this case where insurance carriers and their counsel utilize it for the proposition that an overinflated estimate is de facto fraud/material misrepresentation. Let me make this perfectly clear: Alvarez stands for nothing of the sort.

This past week, Michael Cassel and Christy Brigman, presented at the Windstorm Insurance Network ("WIND") 2020 Conference in Orlando, Florida.

As many of you know, Michael Cassel presented at the Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters ("FAPIA") 2019 Conference in Orlando, Florida, regarding building code compliance along with a number of related areas of law and coverage.​

Hillary Cassel has been recognized as a 2019 Superstar by Attorney At Law Magazine and will be featured on the front cover.

Hillary Cassel has been recognized as a 2019 Top Rated Lawyer and National Legal Leader in Insurance Law by The American Lawyer magazine and the National Law Journal.

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.

Hillary Cassel  and  Michael Cassel have both been named as 2019 Rising Stars by Super Lawyers Magazine. This marks the third consecutive year for Michael and fifth consecutive year for Hillary.

The law firm of Cassel & Cassel, P.A., has expanded by adding Attorney Christy Brigman to the practice. Founded by Hillary Cassel and Michael Cassel, Cassel & Cassel, P.A., is a boutique firm dedicated solely to the representation of residential and commercial policyholders in property damage insurance claims from pre-suit assistance to litigation through trial.

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.

As many of you know, Michael Cassel, along with Paul Del Vecchio from PJDCCI, presented at the Windstorm Insurance Network ("WIND") 2019 Conference in Orlando, Florida, regarding building code compliance along with a number of related areas of law and coverage.