Builder’s Risk Insurance
Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. Ironshore Spec. Ins. Co., et al., 2:25-cv-1044-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., July 30, 2026 (Polster Chappell, J.) (denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the second amended complaint satisfies Rule 8 and is not an impermissible shotgun pleading because Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants jointly participated in the same coverage-denial conduct and therefore could properly be sued together in the same counts, and rejecting Defendants’ argument that the declaratory-judgment claim was duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim, reasoning that Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a claim, not whether it is redundant, and redundancy alone is not a basis for dismissal at the pleading stage). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-01044-59-2-cv
Flood Insurance
- Ramkissoon v. NGM Ins. Co., 8:26-cv-549-KKM-CPT (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2026 (Kimball Mizelle, J.) (granting NGM’s motion to dismiss, holding that Ramkissoon’s breach-of-contract claim under the Standard Flood Insurance Policy was barred by the policy’s one-year suit limitation because NGM’s November 22, 2024 partial denial letter constituted a written notice of disallowance that triggered the limitations period, and the suit was not filed until March 2, 2026). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-00549-22-8-cv
- The Estate of Debra Brantingham v. Allstate Ins. Co., 8:25-cv-03134-SDM-LSG (M.D. Fla., July 30, 2026 (Merryday, J.) (denying Allstate’s motion to dismiss, holding that dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds was inappropriate because the timeliness of the action depended on resolving disputed factual issues concerning which denial letter constituted the operative notice of disallowance under the Standard Flood Insurance Policy which could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss, and further denying Allstate’s requests to eliminate the attorney’s fee demand and jury demand because those matters are properly raised by a motion to strike rather than a motion to dismiss). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-03134-22-8-cv
Property Insurance
Riva Del Lago Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 2:24-cv-01056-KCD-KRH (M.D. Fla., July 30, 2026 (Dudek, J.) (denying the Association’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Steadfast’s engineering expert, holding that expert’s opinions satisfied Rule 702 and Daubert because they were grounded in accepted engineering standards, were testable, and any alleged flaws went to the weight of his testimony rather than its admissibility). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-01056-132-2-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.