Flood Insurance
Souliaev v. Allstate Ins. Co., 8:26-cv-00129-SDM-LSG (M.D. Fla., Apr. 10, 2026 (Merryday, J.)) (granting Allstate’s motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiff’s claim was time-barred as Plaintiff filed suit more than one year after Allstate mailed its partial denial of coverage under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy issued pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program.) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-00129-14-8-cv
Homeowners Insurance
Genzer and Simmons v. Westfield Ins. Co., 6:26-cv-744-JA-NWH (M.D. Fla., Apr. 9, 2026 (Antoon II, J.)) (granting Westfields’ unopposed motion to strike Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees, holding that in this action arising under a residential property insurance policy, attorney’s fees are unavailable pursuant to Florida law.) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-00744-10-6-cv
Discovery
- AXA XL Ins. Co. UK Ltd. v. McPherson, as Pers. Representative of the Est. of Virginia McPherson, et al., 8:25-cv-202-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla., Apr.6, 2026 (Sansone, J.)) (denying Defendants Delta Healthcare II, LLC and Michael Eloian’s motion to compel discovery from MS Amlin and Renaissance, holding that Defendants failed to meet their burden of showing the requested discovery was relevant and proportional under Rule 26(b)(1), particularly where their motion improperly incorporated prior arguments by reference in violation of Local Rule 3.01(h), and finding that additional discovery into follow‑market insurers’ internal coverage discussions was not proportional to the needs of the case given the absence of evidence they received earlier notice.) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-00202-125-8-cv
- AXA XL Ins. Co. UK Ltd. v. McPherson, as Pers. Representative of the Est. of Virginia McPherson, et al., 8:25-cv-202-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla., Apr. 8, 2026 (Sansone, J.)) (denying in part and granting in part AXA’s motion contesting the court’s production order, holding that even if insurer’s emails and log notes constituted fact work product, the defendants demonstrated substantial need and undue hardship because the materials were central to rebutting presumed prejudice from late notice in this coverage dispute; but finding that three specific emails from Meleta Smith to Attorney Shaw were protected by the attorney‑client privilege because they were created for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice, while the remaining communications merely forwarded non‑privileged factual information.) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-00202-132-8-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.