Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 20, 2017 by admin

Insurance — Bad faith — Insured’s action against insurer — Condition precedent — Civil remedies notice — Trial court erred by entering final summary judgment in favor of insurer on ground that insured did not timely send CRN as required by statute and therefore could not maintain its bad faith cause of action where record undisputedly established that insurer received insured’s CRN nearly four years before bad faith suit was filed and responded to the CRN without challenging its service

42
Fla. L. Weekly D2226aTop of Form

Insurance
— Bad faith — Insured’s action against insurer — Condition precedent —
Civil remedies notice — Trial court erred by entering final summary judgment
in favor of insurer on ground that insured did not timely send CRN as required
by statute and therefore could not maintain its bad faith cause of action where
record undisputedly established that insurer received insured’s CRN nearly four
years before bad faith suit was filed and responded to the CRN without
challenging its service

EVERGREEN LAKES HOA, INC.,
Appellant, v. LLOYD’S UNDERWRITERS AT LONDON, A/K/A UNDERWRITER’S AT LLOYD’S,
LONDON, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D16-2657. October 18, 2017. Appeal
from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County;
Barbara McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 06-19403 (21). Counsel: Nancy A.
Lauten and George A. Vaka of Vaka Law Group, P.L., and Kelly L. Kubiak of
Merlin Law Group, Tampa, for appellant. Patrick E. Betar, William S. Berk and
Melissa M. Sims of Berk, Merchant & Sims, PLC, Coral Gables, for appellee.

(BUCHANAN, LAURIE E., Associate
Judge.) Evergreen Lakes HOA, Inc. (“Evergreen”) appeals the trial court’s entry
of final summary judgment in favor of Lloyd’s Underwriters at London a/k/a
Underwriter’s at Lloyd’s London (“Underwriters”) in Evergreen’s bad faith
lawsuit against Underwriters. The trial court found that Evergreen did not
timely send Underwriters a Civil Remedies Notice (“CRN”) as required by section
624.155(3), Florida Statutes (2006) and, therefore, could not maintain its bad
faith cause of action. Because the record undisputedly establishes that
Underwriters received Evergreen’s CRN nearly four years before Evergreen filed
its bad faith suit and responded to the CRN without challenging its service, we
reverse and remand.

This case stems from an insurance
claim made by Evergreen after its property sustained damage in 2005’s Hurricane
Wilma. Evergreen became dissatisfied with Underwriters’ handling of its claim
and drafted a CRN on the form provided by the Florida Department of Financial
Services (“DFS”) in July of 2006. Evergreen mailed a copy of the CRN to DFS and
claims to have also mailed a copy to Underwriters at its address as identified
in DFS’s insurer database. DFS accepted the CRN as of August 15, 2006 and sent
out a notice providing that “the sixty (60) day time period required by Florida
Statutes 624.155(3)(a) began to run as of the date of acceptance.” Underwriters
replied to the CRN before the sixty day time period lapsed and in its response,
challenged the sufficiency of the CRN. Underwriters did not, however, raise any
issues with the service of the CRN or otherwise challenge the DFS acceptance
date of August 15, 2006.

Nearly four years later, Evergreen
sued Underwriters for bad faith. Evergreen’s bad faith claim was abated for
several more years pending resolution of Evergreen’s underlying breach of insurance
policy claim. The bad faith litigation eventually resumed in 2013 and
subsequent discovery revealed that the address Evergreen sent its CRN to may
not have been Underwriters’ correct address. However, it also established that,
at the latest, Underwriters’ counsel was in receipt of the CRN by October 2,
2006. Nonetheless, Underwriters moved for summary judgment, arguing that
Evergreen could not prove that Underwriters received the CRN on or before the
DFS acceptance date and therefore, Evergreen’s bad faith claim was precluded.
The court agreed with Underwriters and entered summary judgment in its favor.
We review the court’s entry of summary judgment de novo. Volusia Cty. v.
Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P.
, 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000).

Prior to 1982, an insured in Florida
had no common law cause of action for bad faith against its insurer and was
instead confined to breach of contract damages. Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co.
, 753 So. 2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000). This changed upon
the Legislature’s adoption of section 624.155, the civil remedy statute of the
Florida Insurance Code. Id. Now, an insured may, among other reasons,
sue its insurer for “not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under
all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly
and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.”
§ 624.155(1)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (2006).

As a condition precedent to an
insured filing such a suit, however, “the department and the authorized insurer
must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violation.” §
624.155(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). Because there was no first-party common law
cause of action for bad faith before the enactment of section 624.155, the
Florida Supreme Court has instructed that this notice condition “must be
strictly construed.” Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283. To that end, the statute
provides that the notice must “be on a form provided by the department” and
must specify the following:

1. The
statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the
authorized insurer allegedly violated.

2. The
facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.

3. The
name of any individual involved in the violation.

4.
Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if
any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or
he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the
authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party
claimant pursuant to written request.

5. A
statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the
civil remedy authorized by this section.

§ 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006).

In 2006, the statute did not contain
any guidance as to how (e.g. via email, certified mail, etc.) the insurer must
be “given” the CRN.1 However, the statute did clarify that
the CRN is meant to serve as an opportunity for the insurer to cure the alleged
violation and thereby avoid civil litigation. § 624.155(3)(d), Fla. Stat.
(2006) (“No action shall lie if, within 60 days after filing notice, the
damages are paid or the circumstances giving rise to the violation are
corrected.”).

Here, there is no dispute that both
DFS and Underwriters were “given” a copy of Evergreen’s CRN, which was on the
form provided by DFS, more than 60 days before Evergreen filed its bad faith suit.
Indeed, Underwriters had almost four years to cure the alleged violation before
it was sued for bad faith. Underwriters acknowledges this fact, but argues that
summary judgment was still appropriate because, due to Evergreen’s mailing
error, it did not have the benefit of the full 60 day cure period as governed
by the DFS acceptance date. Even if we were to construe section 624.155 as
requiring that the insurer be “given” a copy of the CRN on or before the DFS
acceptance date, Underwriters waived compliance with any such requirement by
responding to the CRN within 60 days of the DFS acceptance date without
challenging its timely receipt of the CRN. See, e.g., Ingersoll v.
Hoffman
, 589 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 1991) (holding that “failure to comply
with the prelitigation notice requirements of [the medical malpractice statute]
may be excused by a showing of estoppel or waiver” even though “[t]he presuit
notice and screening requirements of [the statute] represent more than mere
technicalities”); Schumacher v. Town of Jupiter, 643 So. 2d 8, 9 (Fla.
4th DCA 1994) (holding that although “strict compliance with statutory notice
requirements [for amending a zoning ordinance] is mandatory and jurisdictional,
a contesting landowner may waive the right, or be estopped, to assert a defect
in the notice if that landowner appeared at the hearing and was able to fully
and adequately present any objections to the ordinance”).

Based on the foregoing, we hold that
the court erred in granting Underwriters’ motion for summary judgment based on
its lack of proper notice argument. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded. (WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.)

__________________

1In 2009,
DFS created an administrative rule requiring CRNs to be electronically
submitted through DFS’ website. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69J-123.002 (2009).

* * *Bottom of Form

 

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982