FIGA
Florida Ins. Guaranty Association, Inc. v. Broome, 6D2025-1813 (6th Dist. of Fla., July 10, 2026- Ojeda, J.) (reversing the trial court’s order enforcing the settlement agreement against the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) and remanded with instructions to limit FIGA’s payment obligation to the $9,386.69 allocated to covered insurance claims, excluding attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest, and reasoned that the $35,613.31 in pre-insolvency attorney’s fees was not recoverable because such fees did not result from any denial of a covered claim by FIGA and, in any event, arose from a post-loss settlement agreement rather than coverage under the insurance policy; the court also held that section 631.57(1)(b) expressly bars FIGA’s liability for prejudgment interest). https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2491330/opinion/Opinion_2025-1813.pdf
FIGA- Homeowners’ Insurance
Florida Ins. Guaranty Association, Inc. v. Wilson, 4D2025-0232 (4th Dist. of Fla., July 8, 2026- Conner, J., (Levine and Shepherd, JJ. concurring)) (reversing the order requiring the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) to pay the remaining balance of a pre-insolvency settlement, holding that the unpaid $21,500 represented attorney’s fees and was not a covered claim that FIGA was obligated to pay, and reasoning that the insured’s complaint sought attorney’s fees under section 627.428, the settlement expressly stated it was “inclusive of any claim for attorneys’ fees,” and the separate payment earmarked to counsel could only reasonably be construed as attorney’s fees, which are not recoverable from FIGA absent coverage for such fees under the insurance policy itself). https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2491181/opinion/Opinion_2025-0232.pdf
Flood Insurance
Waterline Villas and Marina Condo Ass’n, Inc. v. Wright National Flood Ins. Co., 8:26-cv-40-KKM-SPF (M.D. Fla., July 10, 2026- Kimball Mizelle, J.) (granting Wright National Flood Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss the condominium association’s amended complaint with prejudice, holding that the breach-of-contract claim under the National Flood Insurance Program was untimely because it was filed more than one year after Wright mailed its January 3, 2025 partial denial letter, and reasoning that the denial letter unequivocally triggered the one-year limitations period under the National Flood Insurance Act and that equitable tolling was unavailable because FEMA and Wright expressly advised that the administrative appeal process would not extend the deadline; the court further held that the negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by federal law because NFIP regulations provide that disputes arising from policy issuance, administration, and claims handling are governed exclusively by federal law). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-00040-26-8-cv
Kimball Lodge Condo. Association, Inc. v. Wright National Flood Ins. Co., 2:24-cv-662-KCD-NPM (M.D. Fla., July 7, 2026- Dudek, J.) (denying without prejudice the condominium association’s Daubert motion to exclude portions of the insurer’s engineering expert’s testimony because the association failed to provide the expert report that the court was being asked to evaluate, and reasoning that Rule 702 requires an exacting review of the expert’s methodology and opinions, which was impossible without the report itself, and further noted that because the case will be tried as a bench trial, any objections to allegedly improper legal conclusions can be addressed in context at trial rather than through pretrial exclusion). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-00662-40-2-cv
Property Insurance
Nolan, et ano. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2:26-cv-148-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., July 6, 2026- Mizell, J.) (granting the insureds’ motion to compel appraisal and stayed the case, finding that the insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, had received sufficient information and ample time to investigate and adjust the Hurricane Ian claim, making appraisal ripe for resolution of the amount-of-loss dispute, and further establishing detailed procedures governing the appraisal process, including requirements for impartial appraisers, selection of an umpire, permissible discovery, and a detailed appraisal award format, emphasizing that the appraisal panel must determine covered damage and loss values in accordance with the policy before the court later applies deductibles, policy limits, and prior payments). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-00148-40-2-cv
Riva Del Lago Condo. Association, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 2:24-cv-1056-KCD-KRH (M.D. Fla., July 7, 2026- Dudek, J) (denying Steadfast Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the condominium association may pursue replacement-cost-value (RCV) and ordinance-and-law damages at trial even though it has not yet completed all repairs, and that its expert’s sampling methodology created sufficient evidence of damages to present the case to a jury, and reasoning that, under recent Florida appellate authority, an insurer that allegedly breaches a policy by underpaying or denying covered losses cannot rely on repair-completion conditions to bar recovery of replacement-cost damages, because the proper measure of breach-of-contract damages includes the benefits the insured would have received had the insurer performed as required under the policy). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-01056-105-2-cv
Business Owner’s Property Insurance
Teaching Time Academy, Inc. v. Amguard Ins. Co., 6:24-cv-2344-PGB-RMN (M.D. Fla., July 7, 2026- Byron, J.) (finding AmGuard Insurance Company’s second motion for summary judgment moot because the motion sought only to preclude recovery of replacement-cost-value (RCV) damages, and the parties later stipulated that the insured’s claim would be limited to actual cash value (ACV) damages, and reasoning that, once the parties agreed to pursue only ACV, the motion’s arguments regarding the insured’s failure to satisfy conditions precedent for RCV coverage no longer affected any live issue in the case, and the motion contained no arguments or stipulated facts addressing ACV damages on which summary judgment could be granted). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-02344-62-6-cv
Workers Compensation Insurance
Bouayad v. Normandy Ins. Co., et al. SC2023-1576 (Fla., July 9, 2026- Muniz, J.) (quashing the First District’s decision and held that injuries from a third-party assault can be compensable under Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law when the employee establishes that the assault was sufficiently work-related, including by showing that the employee’s job duties or work environment exposed the employee to an increased risk of such an attack and reasoning that the First District incorrectly focused on whether the specific task Bouayad was performing at the moment of the shooting (“walking”) directly caused the injury, whereas the proper statutory inquiry is whether there is a nexus between the injury and the employee’s work as a whole; longstanding precedent permits occupational causation to be shown through workplace risks and hazards that contributed to the assault, even when the assailant’s motive is unknown.) https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2491290/opinion/Opinion_SC2023-1576.pdf
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.