Auto Insurance
Dunaway v. Chubb Ins. Co. of New Jersey, a foreign corporation, 8:26-cv-1767-KKM-SPF (M.D. of Fla., Sept. 1, 2026-Kimball Mizelle, DJ.) (granting Chubb’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the Dunaways’ declaratory judgment action without prejudice, holding that although the coverage dispute was ripe because the state-court default established the alleged tortfeasor’s liability for Article III purposes, the claim could not be maintained under Florida law, and reasoning that Florida’s nonjoinder statute, section 627.4136, bars an injured party from suing a tortfeasor’s liability insurer until the party obtains a settlement, verdict, or equivalent judgment against the tortfeasor, and a mere entry of default does not satisfy that statutory condition precedent because it does not finally determine damages). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-01767-12-8-cv
Homeowners Insurance/FIGA
- Florida Ins. Guaranty Association v. Simmons, 3D25-0873 (3rd Dist. of Fla., Sept. 2, 2026-Fernandez, J.) (reversing the order enforcing the full $75,000 settlement against FIGA and remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine what portion of the settlement payments to counsel constituted attorney’s fees and whether any remaining amounts were covered insurance benefits, and reasoning that FIGA is obligated to pay only “covered claims” under Florida’s guaranty statute, and attorney’s fees arising from a post-loss settlement agreement are not covered claims; because the settlement record, charging lien references, payment structure, and counsel’s admissions indicated that at least part of the settlement included attorney’s fees, the trial court erred by compelling FIGA to pay the entire amount without first determining the allocation of those payments). https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2494711/opinion/Opinion_2025-0873.pdf
- Florida Ins. Guaranty Association v. Synergy Contracting, Inc., 2D2025-0999 (2nd Dist. of Fla., Sept. 2, 2026-Atkinson, J.) (reversing the judgment enforcing a settlement against FIGA to the extent it required payment of a $20,000 amount earmarked for the insured’s attorney, holding that FIGA was not obligated to pay that portion of the settlement and remanding for further proceedings, and reasoning that FIGA is liable only for statutory “covered claims” arising from and within the coverage of the insurance policy, and the settlement agreement expressly identified the $20,000 payment as attorney’s fees and costs arising from a post-loss settlement rather than a benefit covered by the policy; therefore, that obligation fell outside FIGA’s statutory responsibilities). https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2494674/opinion/Opinion_2025-0999.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.