Insurance companies often take a proactive stance when asserting they do not have a “duty to defend” or cover a particular policyholder. This normally takes the form of asking a judge to issue a declaratory judgment stating as such. Obviously, the insured party may not be happy with such a judgment. But what about a third-party victim seeking to recover compensation? Do they have legal standing to appeal a declaratory judgment issued in favor of an insurer? 

11th Circuit Dismisses Sexual Abuse Victim’s Appeal for Lack of Legal Standing 

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals–which has federal appellate jurisdiction over Florida, Alabama, and Georgia–recently addressed this issue. The case, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Barrow, involved an especially heinous criminal act. But the underlying insurance dispute proved rather simple for the court to resolve. 

Here is what happened, a young girl was sexually abused by her mother and her employer. More precisely, the victim’s mother “arranged” for the employer, a man named Barrow, to take sexually explicit photographs of her. This eventually led to Barrow molesting the victim at his house and at a local hotel. 

Alabama police eventually arrested Barrow. He pleaded guilty to human trafficking charges and is now serving 30 years in prison. Separately, the victim filed a civil lawsuit against Barrow. This led to a dispute over whether Barrow’s homeowner’s insurance policy would cover any potential judgment obtained by the victim. 

The insurer filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend Barrow. The victim opposed the lawsuit, but Barrow did not. A U.S. district judge ultimately granted the insurer its declaratory judgment. 

The victim then appealed to the 11th Circuit. But that Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The 11th Circuit explained that a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit does have the right to appeal a declaratory judgment that holds an insurer has no duty to provide coverage for an accident. But that does not apply to cases, such as this one, where the declaratory judgment holds that the insurer has no duty to defend the policyholder. 

The 11th Circuit noted that one of its sister courts, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, addressed a similar situation back in 1995. In that case, the Seventh Circuit said that if a court found there was no duty to defend, that actually “helped” the plaintiff, since the insurer would not be paying for the policyholder’s defense. The 11th Circuit adopted similar reasoning here, noting that the victim “suffered no injury from the judgment in favor” of the insurance company. 

Contact HD Law Partners Today for How We Can Help 

Disputes over insurance coverage for a personal injury lawsuit are often more legally complex than the underlying lawsuit itself. That is why it is important to work with an experienced Tampa insurance attorney who understands these areas of the law. Contact HD Law Partners today if you need to speak with an attorney right away. 

Source

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

The Difference Between an Insurer’s Contractual and Statutory Duties Under Florida Law

Insurance companies have two independent duties when it comes to paying a claim filed by a policyholder. The first duty is contractual, i.e., the insurer’s responsibilities under the policy itself. This contractual duty extends to any requirements regarding the evaluation and payment of benefits.

The second legal duty is that imposed by statute, i.e., by the Florida legislature. State law requires all insurers to “act reasonably and in good faith” when evaluating a policyholder’s claim. Even if the insurer ultimately pays the claim–that is, fulfills its contractual duty–it can still be held liable for acting in bad faith with respect to its statutory duty.

Insurer Still Faces Bad Faith Claim Despite Paying Appraisal Award to Homeowner

The Florida Second District Court of Appeals recently addressed the interaction of these two duties in a first-party bad faith insurance lawsuit. In Williams v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, a homeowner filed a claim with his insurer over lightning damage to his property.

The insurer acknowledged coverage and made payments to the homeowner over a period of several years. But the homeowner eventually disputed the amount of the loss. This prompted the insurer to invoke an appraisal clause in the insurance policy.

While the appraisal was pending, the homeowner filed a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN), which is a necessary precondition to filing a bad faith lawsuit under Florida law. The homeowner ultimately filed such a lawsuit. Before he did, however, but after it received the CRN, the appraiser issued an award and the insurer paid the full amount of that award.

Nevertheless, the homeowner still pursued his bad faith lawsuit. A dispute arose before the trial court over whether or not the insurer’s payment of the final appraisal award actually “cured” the CRN. In other words, did the fact that the insurer paid the award after it received the CRN justify dismissing the homeowner’s lawsuit?

The trial court said “yes.” The Second District said “no.” The appellate court explained that both the insurer and the trial court had conflated contractual and statutory duties. The appraisal award addressed contractual duty. But under Florida’s bad faith insurance statute, once the homeowner filed his CRN, the insurer had 60 days to respond–i.e., to cure the notice by fulfilling its obligations. But the insurer waited past the 60 days until the arbitration process was completed.

The insurer argued that the 60-day period should have been “tolled” until the date of the arbitration award. The Second District disagreed. Again, whether or not the insurer met its contractual duty was a separate question of whether it met its statutory duty. As such, the homeowner could proceed with his bad faith claim.

Contact Us to Help You Today

Insurance companies and policyholders alike need to be aware of how different aspects of Florida law may affect their rights in the event of a dispute. An experienced Tampa bad faith insurance attorney can provide guidance and legal representation. Contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2816399245345514889

Posted in Insurance Bad Faith | No Comments »

If you own a car in Florida, you should know that you are required to carry a certain minimum amount of auto insurance. Florida is a “no-fault” state, your insurance is expected to pay for any personal injury that you sustain in an accident. But this personal injury protection (PIP) coverage is often insufficient to fully cover your medical expenses and other accident-related losses. PIP coverage does not address situations where your accident was caused by the negligence of another driver.

This brings up another issue. Even when you can prove that the other driver was responsible for the accident, they may have little (if any) insurance coverage of their own. So what do you do then? In many cases, your own insurance company may still be responsible assuming you purchased uninsured motorist (UM) coverage as part of your auto policy.

How UM Coverage Works And Why You Need It

UM coverage kicks in when you, or someone else covered by your policy, is injured by a driver with either no insurance or insufficient insurance to fully compensate the injured party for their legal damages. Keep in mind, an uninsured driver can also include an unknown party, such as a hit-and-run driver who flees the scene of an accident and is never identified by the police.

Now, you are not required to purchase or maintain UM coverage under Florida law. However, your insurance company is legally required to offer such coverage when you purchase your policy. It is then up to you to reject UM coverage in writing. In most cases, it is a good idea to carry at least some UM coverage.

Normally, your insurance company will offer you UM coverage with the same basic limits as your required PIP coverage. You can also elect to purchase a higher limit of coverage. One thing to note, is that UM coverage is often sold as either “stacking” or “non-stacking.” The basic difference between the two is that while stacked coverage is typically more expensive, it also allows you to combine the limits on multiple insured vehicles. In other words, say you have two insured vehicles, each with a UM limit of $50,000 per person. Should an accident occur, the maximum coverage on a stacked UM policy would be $100,000 per person.

Not to mention that UM coverage only covers personal injury. It does not cover any damage to your car. For this reason, you should not avoid UM coverage simply because you have an older vehicle. Remember, UM coverage is designed to protect you and other household members in the event of a serious accident.

Protect Yourself And Speak With Us Today

Even if you have UM coverage, your insurance company may still put up a fight when it comes time to actually pay out the policy. That is why it is a good idea to consult with an experienced Tampa auto accident attorney who will look out for your best interests. Contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a free consultation with a member of our Florida personal injury team.

Posted in Auto Accidents, Auto Insurance | No Comments »

Historically, Florida common law has allowed parties to assign their contractual rights to third parties. There are some exceptions–such as agreements involving personal service obligations or that otherwise violate public policy–but generally speaking, one party cannot prohibit the other from assigning their rights under a contract. And although Florida statutes state that a contract for insurance “may be assignable, or not assignable, as provided by its terms,” courts have long held that an insurer cannot demand consent before allowing a policyholder to assign insurance benefits to a third party.

Judge: Insurer Cannot Require Consent for Assignment of Post-Loss Claims

A recent decision by a federal judge in Fort Myers, Florida, Sabran v. Rockhill Insurance Company, illustrates the difficulties faced by insurance companies in attempting to enforce restrictions on assigning policy benefits. This case revolved around a Florida property damaged by Hurricane Irma in 2017. The property owner, a limited liability company (LLC), filed a claim with its insurance carrier. The insurer denied the claim in 2019.

Over a year later, in 2020, the LLC sold the property to a couple, who are the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. At the time of the sale, the LLC also assigned its disputed insurance claim related to Hurricane Irma to the plaintiffs. After the sale closed, the plaintiffs then filed a second claim, which the insurer again denied.

The plaintiffs ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract. The insurance company moved to dismiss the case. The insurer argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not suffered any injury–and more to the point, the policy contained an “anti-transfer clause” that barred the LLC from assigning its rights to a third party.

A federal judge rejected the insurance company’s defenses on this issue. The judge acknowledged that the language of the policy stated the LLC’s “rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred” without the insurance company’s “written consent.” But this clause was unenforceable under Florida law. As noted above, Florida common law has long protected the rights of insured parties to assign their benefits after a loss without first seeking the insurer’s consent.

And even if the anti-transfer clause was enforceable, the judge went on to explain that the language used in the policy only forbade “the transfer of the entire insurance policy, not a post-loss benefit under the policy,” or for that matter the transfer of the LLC’s rights without obtaining the insurer’s consent. Here, the LLC did not, in fact, assign the entire policy. It only assigned its post-loss rights, i.e., the right to file a claim related to the Hurricane Irma damage.

Speak with a Florida Insurance Lawyer Today

Insurance companies have every right to hold policyholders to the strict language of a policy. But the same is true for insurers, who must also be aware of any statutory or common law restrictions imposed upon their policies. So if you are involved in a coverage-related dispute and need legal representation from a qualified Tampa insurance litigation attorney, contact HD Law Partners today.

Source

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

Even when an insurance company is required to cover some damages arising from a specific event, such as water damage, that does not necessarily mean the policy covers all damages incidental to the event. Of course, an insurer is required to pay a valid claim in good faith. But they are not under any legal obligation to go beyond the scope of the policy’s coverage.

Florida Appeals Court: Insurer Only Liable for Overflowed Toilet, Not the Damaged Pipe That Fed It

Take this recent decision from the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, State Farm Insurance Company v. Shotwell. This case involved a dispute over water damage to a private residence. The homeowner’s toilet overflowed, causing substantial water damage to his master bathroom, master bedroom, and adjoining parts of the house.

The homeowner held an “all-risk” policy with State Farm. The insurer acknowledged coverage for some of the water damage and issued an initial payment of $888.72, which accounted for the homeowner’s deductible and depreciation.

The homeowner then hired a public adjuster to assess the total amount of the property damage. Working with a construction company, the adjuster determined the toilet overflowed “due to a blockage in a sagging and corroded pipe” located underneath the kitchen cabinets. This pipe serviced the master bathroom. To access and fix that pipe, the construction company therefore needed to tear out and replace part of the kitchen cabinets.

An appraiser ultimately determined the total amount of the homeowner’s damages came to around $139,000. State Farm said it would only pay some of that amount. Of note here, the insurance company argued it was not responsible for the costs of tearing out part of the kitchen to access the defective pipe.

Dissatisfied, the homeowner sued State Farm for breach of contract. A trial judge sided with the homeowner and ordered State Farm to pay the full amount of damages. On appeal, however, the Third District partially reversed. It agreed with State Farm that the policy language did in fact exclude the costs of tearing out the kitchen cabinets.

The key provision of the insurance policy stated that when property loss was caused by water “escaping” from a system, State Farm would pay to tear out and replace “only that particular part … necessary to gain access to the specific point of that system … from which the water” escaped. In other words, State Farm was liable for damages to the toilet–since that was the point where water actually escaped into the house–and not the pipe in the kitchen. It might sound pedantic, but the Third District said that was how the policy was worded.

Contact a Florida Insurance Lawyer Today

Insurance disputes often turn on highly specific policy language. Insurers and insured parties alike need to carefully review and understand their policies before heading into court. An experienced Tampa mold and water damage attorney can help. Contact HD Law Partners today if you are involved in a potential insurance dispute and need legal representation.

Source:

https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/793820/opinion/210356_DC08_10062021_103741_i.pdf

Posted in Mold Water Damage | No Comments »

Homeowner’s insurance policies often contain appraisal clauses. Appraisal is a form of alternative dispute resolution similar to arbitration. In its simplest form, an appraisal clause states that if the parties disagree as to the amount of an insured loss, each side will appoint an independent appraiser. If the appraisers cannot agree on a value, they will jointly appoint an umpire to act as a tie-breaker. The final decision is then binding on the insurance company and the policyholder.

Florida Court: Roofing Contractor Must Submit Insurance Claim to Appraisal

When an insurance policy provides for binding appraisal, then either party may initiate the process and the other party must comply. But what happens if the homeowner assigns their claim to a third party, such as a company hired to perform repairs? Does the appraisal process bind the third party as well?

Earlier this year, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal addressed just such a case, Webb Roofing & Construction v. FedNat Insurance Company. Here, the insurance company sought to compel appraisal over the objections of the third-party contractor.

The case itself arose from damage to a home sustained during Hurricane Irma in 2017. The homeowners hired a contractor to repair damage to their roof. The contractor insisted on an assignment of insurance benefits to secure payment.

The contractor subsequently sued the insurance company for damages. The insurance company replied by stating it had the right to compel an appraisal under the policy. The contractor argued it could not be compelled to submit to an appraisal.

A Florida circuit court judge sided with the insurance company. It held that the mandatory appraisal provision in the policy was enforceable against the contractor. The contractor persisted and filed an appeal, but the Second District agreed with the circuit court’s decision.

As the Court of Appeals explained, the general rule in Florida is that absent certain limited exceptions, “[a] All contractual rights are assignable” unless the contract itself prohibits assignment. This includes “post-loss insurance claims.” In this case, the homeowners assigned their post-loss claims to the contractor. That assignment did not, however, eliminate the “duty of compliance with contract conditions.” At the same time, a third party cannot be held liable for performance of any duty under the contract.

But compliance with the appraisal provision is not a matter of “performance,” the Second District held. Rather, it is a condition precedent to receiving benefits under the insurance policy. That condition was “not eliminated by a post-loss assignment of the contract.” The contractor therefore had to submit their dispute over the amount of coverage to binding appraisal.

Speak with a Florida Insurance Lawyer Today

Appraisal and alternative dispute resolution generally play an important role in resolving insurance claims. Insurance companies certainly have every right to enforce their own contracts providing for such methods of dispute resolution. If you are involved in such a dispute and need representation from an experienced Tampa insurance litigation attorney, contact the offices of HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation with a member of our team.

Source

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

Insurance disputes often involve complex questions of law and contract interpretation. Yet many cases boil down to a single question: Does the insurance policy actually cover the claim at issue? Sometimes this question proves relatively easy to answer.

For example, there is this recent decision from a federal judge in Tampa, Ditech Financial LLC v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company. The plaintiff in this case was a mortgage loan servicing company. The plaintiff ran into trouble with regulators in 2014 over purported “deficiencies” in its business practices. As relevant to this case, the plaintiff had failed to conduct annual escrow analysis for borrowers involved in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases.

Basically, Ditech was supposed to analyze any changes to a borrowers’ property tax and insurance payments while they were in bankruptcy. The failure to conduct this analysis meant that there were shortages in the borrowers’ escrow accounts, which they remained liable for under their mortgages. Ditech made up for these shortfalls and then tried to get its money back from the borrowers after they exited bankruptcy.

The Executive Office of the United States Trustee (EOUST), which oversees bankruptcy estates, raised concerns about this practice with the plaintiff in 2014. In October 2015, an EOUST lawyer sent an email notifying the plaintiff’s attorney that the Trustee Program would “move forward” with settlement discussions over this and other deficiencies with respect to the plaintiff’s business practices.

The final settlement included approximately $24 million related to the escrow accounts. The plaintiff then tried to recover these losses under two of its business liability insurance policies. The insurers refused to provide coverage, prompting the plaintiff to file its federal lawsuit.

The judge overseeing the case decided to grant summary judgment to the defendant insurance companies. The judge’s reasoning was straightforward: Coverage under both insurance policies here were “triggered only if a claim is first made against the insured during the policy period.” In this case, the applicable policy period began on September 1, 2016, and ended on September 1, 2017.

But as noted above, the EOUST initially notified the plaintiff of its claim–i.e., its intent to seek a settlement related to the escrow accounts–in October 2015, nearly a year before the policy period. The judge noted this email “not a simple request for more information or a mere inquiry into some untoward event.” It was, in fact, a “specific demand for [the plaintiff] to rectify the legally cognizable damage created by its escrow analysis deficiencies.” As such, the clear language of the insurance policies barred the plaintiff from seeking coverage of its losses.

Contact a Tampa Insurance Lawyer Today

In any insurance dispute, both sides have certain rights and responsibilities. That is why it is important to work with an experienced Tampa insurance bad faith attorney who can sit down and review the specific language of a policy with you and offer advice regarding the applicability and scope of its coverage. If you need to speak with someone today, contact HD Law Partners to schedule an initial consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3128397450302785689

Posted in Insurance Bad Faith, Insurance Defense | No Comments »

Florida law requires all insurance companies to act in good faith when approving, denying, or settling claims. An insurer that fails in this duty may face a bad faith lawsuit from an aggrieved policyholder or third-party victim. In defending against such claims, however, the person alleging bad faith still has to present evidence in support of their case. Put another way, an insurance company is not guilty of bad faith based merely on the say-so of the plaintiff.

Federal Court Rules GEICO Not Responsible for $14.9 Million Stipulated Judgment in Motorcycle Accident

A recent decision from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Pelaez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, provides a useful example. This case arose from a 2012 motor vehicle accident in Florida. An 18-year-old man was driving his mother’s car to his high school prom when he collided with a motorcycle. The mother insured the car with GEICO. The son reported the accident to GEICO but did not mention any injuries, even though the motorcycle driver had been airlifted to a hospital.

The next business day, GEICO assigned a claims adjuster to investigate the accident. Within two days, the adjuster reached a preliminary conclusion that the motorcycle driver had been speeding just before the collision. About a week after that, the motorcyclist’s personal injury attorney contacted GEICO but did not make any settlement demands. The day after that–by this point, 11 days after the accident–GEICO decided to offer a $50,000 settlement, which was the limit of the mother’s policy.

GEICO sent the motorcyclist’s attorney a $50,000 check and a proposed release form, which is standard practice in insurance settlements. The release essentially absolved the mother and son of any further liability for the accident. GEICO did not present this as a “take it or leave it” offer. Instead, it invited the motorcyclist’s attorney to review and suggest any changes to the release form.

About a week later, the motorcyclist’s attorney rejected the offer, on the grounds the proposed release was too broad. Indeed, the attorney accused GEICO of acting improperly by demanding any release at all. GEICO informed its policyholders of the rejection.

Five months later, the motorcyclist filed a personal injury lawsuit against the mother and son in Florida state court. GEICO initially defended them against the lawsuit. But the mother and son eventually agreed to a “stipulated judgment” of $14.9 million with the motorcyclist. GEICO did not consent to this judgment. Both sides then filed a bad faith lawsuit against GEICO in federal court.

The 11th Circuit eventually affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of the case. Under these facts, the appellate court said no rational jury could find that GEICO acted in bad faith. The mere fact that GEICO’s settlement offer came with a release form that the motorcyclist’s attorney considered “overbroad” was insufficient to support a bad faith claim. Indeed, the 11th Circuit said the actions of the motorcyclist’s attorney demonstrated “he had higher goals to pursue” and that factored in the “totality of the circumstances” supporting dismissal.

Speak with a Central Florida Bad Faith Insurance Lawyer Today

It is not unusual for a plaintiff’s attorney in a personal injury case to jump up and cry “bad faith” when they are unhappy with a settlement offer. But merely claiming bad faith is not proof. And insurance companies have every right to defend against such spurious claims.

If you are involved in this type of dispute and need legal advice from a skilled Tampa bad faith insurance attorney, contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation.

Source:

media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202012053.pdf

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Insurance companies have a duty to act in good faith when handling an insured party’s claims. This often includes defending the insured against lawsuits that are within the scope of a policy. If an insurer wrongfully refuses to provide such a defense, the insured can settle the case themselves in exchange for the plaintiff promising to only seek collection from the insurance company. This is known as a Coblentz agreement based on a 1969 federal appeals court decision.

The problem with Coblentz agreements is they are susceptible to collusion between the insured party and the person suing them. For this reason, courts will only enforce such agreements if the plaintiff–the party seeking to collect against the insurer–can show that coverage existed, the insurer wrongfully refused to defend the insured defendant, and that the terms of the ultimate settlement were reasonable and made in good faith.

Appeals Court: Insurer Not Liable for Policyholder’s Negligent Management of Citrus Grove

A recent decision from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Richard McKenzie & Sons, Inc., illustrates a case where the plaintiff failed to make these required showings. This case involved a Florida citrus grove. The owner of the grove–the plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit–hired the defendant to manage the grove on his behalf. Essentially, the plaintiff was a hands-off absentee landlord who trusted the defendant to plant and maintain the trees on the grove.

The arrangement soured, however, when the plaintiff said he discovered the defendant billed him for trees that were never planted, stealing his supplies, and in general damaging the groves through negligence. The plaintiff fired the defendant and sued him for breach of contract. The plaintiff subsequently added a negligence claim after discovering the defendant had insurance that might cover such damages.

The plaintiff and defendant eventually settled their non-negligence claims for $200,000, which the defendant agreed to pay personally. The parties also included a Coblentz agreement with respect to the negligence claims in the amount of $2,965,750 in damages. The plaintiff then asserted the right to collect this amount from the insurer.

Understandably, the insurer balked. The insurance company filed its own lawsuit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendant against the plaintiff’s original negligence claims. The insurer further maintained this was a case of improper collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant.

A federal judge granted summary judgment to the insurer. The 11th Circuit affirmed that decision on appeal. The main issue, the Court of Appeals noted, was that the insurance policy contained an exclusion for any “property damage” caused by the defendant “performing operations.” Here, the defendant’s negligence occurred while performing operations on the plaintiff’s citrus grove. His actions therefore fell within the exclusion and the insurer had no duty to indemnify or defend.

Speak with a Florida Insurance Bad Faith Attorney Today

Insurance companies are required to pay legitimate claims. But they are certainly under no obligation to honor Coblentz agreements that attempt to circumvent the clear language of a policy exclusion. If you represent an insurance company looking to defend against such bad faith lawsuits, contact the Tampa bad faith insurance lawyers at HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation.

Source: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5557052695403336909

Posted in Insurance Bad Faith | No Comments »

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a significant disruption to many Florida business owners. It has also led to litigation over the scope of “business interruption” insurance. In other words, if a business loses revenue due to pandemic-related restrictions, does that qualify as an insurable loss?

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit recently addressed this question in a Georgia breach of contract lawsuit, Gilreath Family & Cosmetic Dentistry, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Company. The plaintiff in this case is a dental practice based in Marietta, Georgia. Following the Georgia governor’s declaration of a public health emergency in early 2020 due to COVID-19, the plaintiff followed official guidance and canceled its routine and elective procedures. As this was the bulk of the practice, the plaintiff said it lost a “substantial portion” of its income.

The plaintiff therefore filed a claim on its business interruption coverage with the defendant insurance company. The policy provided coverage for income lost “due to the necessary suspension of its operations” as well as compensation for additional expenses “sustained during that suspension.” The defendant denied the claim, however, noting that business interruption coverage only applied if the suspension was due to a “direct loss to property,” i.e., damage to the insured premises itself. In effect, the insurer’s position was that there had to be some physical damage to the dental office itself–the mere interruption of business due to the state’s health restrictions was not sufficient.

The plaintiff then sued the defendant for breach of contract. But a federal trial court, and later the 11th Circuit, ultimately sided with the insurance company. The 11th Circuit explicitly rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the business interruption language of its policy applied “when government restrictions were in effect” on its practice. As the insurer maintained, the appellate court said the policy language required “physical loss” or damage to the plaintiff’s property. The 11th Circuit added that the Georgia Court of Appeals, interpreting similar policy language, had previously reached the same conclusion.

And there was no dispute that nothing contained in the state’s COVID restrictions damaged the plaintiff’s property. Indeed, the plaintiff never alleged any such damage. The appellate court added that the restrictions did not even force the closure of the plaintiff’s practice, as it remained open for emergency procedures. And even the possibility that keeping the practice partly open during the pandemic–where COVID particles might infect surfaces inside the office–was not enough to qualify as property damage.

Speak with a Florida Insurance Lawyer Today

This is not the last time we will see litigation related to insurance coverage and COVID-19. Insurance companies certainly have a legitimate interest in rejected invalid claims. And businesses affected by the pandemic also have the right to seek clarification as to their rights under a particular policy.

If you need legal advice or representation from a qualified Tampa insurance attorney, contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation.

Source:

https:///scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3683333503521726912&q=hurricane&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=4,10,121,325,326,327

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »