Commercial General Liability
- RS&H, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity, Co., et al., 3:24-cv-00436-WGY-LLL (M.D. of Fla, May 7, 2026- Young, D.J.) (held that neither Charter Oak nor Travelers has a duty to defend RS&H in the underlying Texas personal‑injury lawsuit because the allegations against RS&H fall entirely within each policy’s professional services exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries arising from RS&H’s inspection, safety, and site‑control responsibilities, and reasoning that, applying the eight‑corners rule, the underlying complaint alleges only failures in RS&H’s professional‑services role—such as safety inspections, OSHA compliance, and control of pressurized water systems—so the claims do not trigger a defense obligation under either insurer’s policy.) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-00436-58-3-cv
- Specialty Builders Ins. Co. v. Schaak Services, Inc., 3:26-cv-891-MMH-SJH (M.D. of Fla, May 4, 2026- Howard, J.) (sua sponte questioning its subject‑matter jurisdiction and ordering Specialty Builders Insurance Company to supplement the record to establish that the $75,000 amount‑in‑controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is met in its declaratory‑judgment action, and reasoning that potential indemnity exposure was likely unripe and unsupported at this stage, and that Builders failed to provide evidence of the value of the duty‑to‑defend—information necessary to determine whether the “object of the litigation” exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-00891-10-3-cv
Property Insurance
- Greenaker v. Universal Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2D2024-1964 (2nd DCA, May 8, 2026- Atkinson, J.) (reversing the final judgment for the insurer, holding that the trial court improperly used a motion in limine as a substitute for summary judgment and erroneously excluded the homeowners’ damages evidence, and reasoning that motions in limine cannot be used to summarily dispose of a case and that the trial court also misdefined “actual cash value” by excluding labor and other repair costs, which Florida law recognizes as part of ACV subject to depreciation, requiring remand for further proceedings.) https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2488506/opinion/Opinion_2024-1964.pdf
- Super Green Air Control, LLC, a/a/o Roshell v. Universal Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 1D2024-3044 (1st DCA, May 6, 2026- Kelsey, J.) (reversing the dismissal and holding that the contractor’s assignment of benefits and contemporaneous invoice complied with section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, entitling the contractor to proceed with its claim, and reasoning that, read together, the AOB and invoice adequately provided a written, itemized per-unit cost description of the mold testing and clearance services, and the statute does not require hyper-technical drafting or separate execution where the documents clearly identify the services and costs for a single residential unit.) https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2488365/opinion/Opinion_2024-3044.pdf
- The Naples Continental Club, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, and Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2:25-cv-00910-JES-NPM (M.D. of Fla, May 6, 2026- Steele, J.) (granting Hartford’s motion to dismiss and entering judgment for the insurers, holding that Naples Continental’s flood insurance lawsuit was time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations applicable to Standard Flood Insurance Policies, and reasoning that Hartford’s October 27, 2023 letter constituted a valid FEMA-compliant denial triggering the limitations period, and because the suit was filed nearly two years later, it was barred as a matter of law.) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-00910-36-2-cv
- Mont Claire at Pelican Marsh Condo. Assn. v. Empire Indemnity Ins. Co., 2:25-cv-1099-JES-DNF (M.D. of Fla, May 5, 2026- Steele, J.) (denyingEmpire Indemnity’s motion to strike, allowing Mont Claire’s claimed categories of damages to remain in its first‑party bad‑faith action, and reasoning that under Rule 12(f) the challenged damages were not so unrelated or prejudicial as to warrant the drastic remedy of striking, particularly because Florida law permits recovery of reasonably foreseeable consequential damages in a statutory bad‑faith claim, and the court does not resolve the merits of recoverability at the pleading stage.) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-01099-31-2-cv
The Fine Print:
The cases discussed are not a comprehensive list of all Florida decisions from this week. SLC may omit some, including PCAs and procedural rulings unrelated to coverage. SLC also excludes any cases in which I am or have been personally involved. These summaries are provided solely for informational purposes and do not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Any opinions expressed are my own and are not intended as legal guidance for any specific situation.