Commercial General Liability Insurance

Ohio Security Ins. Co. v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., 2:25-cv-581-SPC-NPM (M.D. of Fla., August 5, 2026- Polster Chappell, J.) (granting summary judgment for Ohio Security Insurance Company and denying Harbor Freight’s cross-motion, holding that Candu was an additional insured under Harbor Freight’s Everest policy, that the Pappas injury claim was covered under that policy, that the Everest policy provided primary coverage while Ohio Security’s policy was excess, and that Harbor Freight must reimburse Ohio Security $978,402.25 under the policy’s self-insured retention provision, and reasoning that the injury arose out of Harbor Freight’s use of the leased premises because the claimant was a Harbor Freight customer injured immediately after exiting the store, that Florida law permitted additional-insured coverage even absent Harbor Freight’s negligence, and that the Everest policy’s language made it primary coverage and required Harbor Freight to fund the settlement up to its $1 million self-insured retention). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-00581-82-2-cv

Homeowners Insurance

People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Fernandez, 5D2025-3174 (5^th Dist. of Fla., Aug. 7, 2026- Harris, J. (Jay, C.J., and MacIver, J., concurring.)) (reversing the trial court’s order denying People’s Trust Insurance Company’s motion to compel appraisal, holding that the insurer did not waive its contractual right to appraisal and remanding with instructions to compel appraisal, and reasoning that under Florida law an insurer may invoke appraisal after litigation begins, and People’s Trust acted consistently with that right by promptly asserting appraisal as an affirmative defense and moving to compel appraisal shortly after the lawsuit was filed; neither its pre-suit settlement offer nor its prior coverage position constituted a waiver). https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2493313/opinion/Opinion_2025-3174.pdf

Property Insurance

Domoracki v. QBE Specialty Ins. Co., 2:25-cv-170-SPC-NPM (M.D. of Fla., August 6, 2026- Polster Chappell, J.) (granting summary judgment for QBE Specialty Insurance Company and entering judgment against the insureds, holding that the plaintiffs could not pursue a breach-of-contract claim based on alleged Hurricane Ian damage to the CMU wall and columns because that dispute had already been submitted to the appraisal process, and reasoning that the plaintiffs forfeited any argument that the issue was not ripe for appraisal by allowing it to proceed through appraisal without objection, and that any failure by the appraisal umpire to resolve or include the claimed damage in the award could support a challenge to the appraisal award itself, but did not constitute a breach of the insurance policy by QBE). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-00170-63-2-cv

Umbrella Insurance/Auto Insurance

RLI Ins. Co. v. Lehman, 24-10600 (11^th Cir., Aug. 7, 2026- Branch, C.J.) (vacating the district court’s judgment for the Lehmans and remanding with instructions to enter summary judgment for RLI Insurance Company, holding that the Lehmans were not entitled to coverage under RLI’s umbrella policy because they failed to satisfy the policy’s exhaustion requirement, and reasoning that the policy required the limits of all underlying insurance to be “exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements,” and under the ordinary meaning of “exhaust,” the Lehmans had to fully consume the Philadelphia policy’s $500,000 limit; because they settled that claim for only $50,001, they did not exhaust the underlying coverage and therefore could not access the umbrella policy). https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202410600.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.