Florida insurers who receive late or no notice of a civil remedy notice (CRN) could have some protection from first-party bad faith exposure after a new appellate ruling under the pre-2020 version of Section 624.155. In Progressive v. Gonzalez, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal ruled that filing of a CRN with the Florida Department of Financial Services alone does not constitute notice to an insurer under the pre-2020 version of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2018).
In 2018, an insured filed a CRN against an insurer concerning the handling of his uninsured motorist claim before filing a lawsuit against the insurer for statutory first-party bad faith. The insured gave the insurer notice of the CRN 75 days after it was filed with the Department of Insurance and 15 days after the bad faith lawsuit was filed. The insurer moved for summary judgment and argued that it had not been given timely notice of the CRN such that it could have an opportunity to cure its allegedly improper claim handling before the lawsuit was filed, as required by Section 624.155.
The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that Section 624.155 did not specify who was responsible for giving notice. The court held that the insurer had access to the department's website, where the CRN was easily accessible. The insured and insurer then entered a $25 million consent judgment that reserved the insurer's right to appeal the trial court's ruling.
On appeal, the appellate court ruled in the insurer's favor. It specifically "reject[ed] the argument that [courts] should read into the statute a requirement that the insurer monitor the Department's website to search for notices filed with the Department." The appellate court found that insureds who file CRNs under the pre-2020 version of Section 624.155 are responsible for giving timely notice to insurers before filing lawsuits.
Because there was no evidence that the insured provided timely notice or that the insurer had otherwise obtained the CRN 60 days prior to the lawsuit, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment ruling and found that the insurer could not be liable for statutory first-party bad faith under the pre-2020 version of Section 624.155. As a result, the $25 million consent judgment was effectively rendered invalid and uncollectable.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
