Florida Insurance Blog

The Supreme Court today ruled that a trial court erred in permitting a defense attorney to argue an insured had a duty to prove sinkhole activity was the case of the damage. In a case styled Universal Insurance Company of North America v. Warfel, the Supreme Court ruled that the insurance company was responsible to disprove the presence of sinkhole activity. At the trial court level, the defense attorney argued that the jury should "presume" the findings of the insurance company engineer to be correct. This argument arose from language adopted by the State in the changes to the law in 2005. Although this interpretation flew in the face of decades of legal precedent, the court permitted the defense attorney to make this argument based upon the limited statement contained in the statute. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that while the statute stated that the findings were to be deemed "correct," this was for purposes of claim evaluation and nothing more. This presumption would essentially "burst" once the case proceeded to trial.

Reported today in the Tampa Bay Times (formerly St. Pete Times), authors Susan Taylor Martin and Dan Dewitt reported on the most recent issues associated with sinkholes in Florida and sinkhole insurance claims. I applaud their attention to detail and am hopeful the next two editions are as thorough. When I spoke with them a few weeks ago, we discussed many of the coverage issues as well as the recent changes in the law, which triggered the quote she attributed to me (yes, I talked about sinkholes and included the term "mashed potato" in reference to the new law).

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation continues to search for methods to resolve its horrid claims practices and mismanagement of public funds. In virtually every case where we are representing policyholders for delayed claims, we are being told sternly by their counsel that "Citizens wants more jury trials." Rather than look at the problems associated with claims decisions made by over-burdened and poorly trained claims personnel, Citizens is looking to the other end of the conflict spectrum by trying to discourage lawyers from filing lawsuits against it. While many insurance professionals would consider another, less costly alternative like reducing the errors, Citizens lawyers are stating universally that it wants to see more of its claims resolved by juries, not by claim managers.

My office receives almost daily calls from members of the military returning from Afghanistan or Iraq who are having trouble getting claims paid by USAA. USAA was formed for the purpose of serving our Nation's military, and is often the go-to insurance company for military personnel, who expect to be treated with respect and good faith practices when they need the help insurance is meant to provide. How else would USAA have the guts to put "honor" in their advertisements?