Auto Insurance

Consul v. Progressive American Ins. Co., No. 23-11458 (11^th Cir., Nov. 5, 2026- Abudu, J.) (vacating the district court’s summary judgment for Progressive American Insurance Company and remanding, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Progressive acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations and therefore the case should be decided by a jury rather than resolved as a matter of law, and reasoning that, viewed in the light most favorable to insured Charbel Consul, a jury could find Progressive unreasonably impeded settlement by insisting on a loss-of-consortium waiver from a spouse it never contacted, requiring transfer of a vehicle title based on a questionable interpretation of Florida law, and failing to adequately communicate settlement developments and excess-judgment risks to its insured, all of which could have contributed to the resulting excess judgment exceeding $1 million). https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202311458.pdf

Commercial General Liability Insurance

United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Phoenix Building Solutions, LLC, et al., No. 8:25-cv-01673-WFJ-SPF (M.D. of Fla., Nov. 3, 2026- Jung, J.) (granting in part and denying in part Ramos Design Build Corporation d/b/a Ramos Construction’s motion to dismiss, dismissing United Specialty Insurance Company’s declaratory-judgment claim in Count VII only as to the duty to defend, allowing Count VII to proceed as to indemnity, denying dismissal of Count VIII, and dismissing Count IX, and reasoning that the underlying third-party complaint against Phoenix Building Solutions, LLC did not allege fungi or mold damage, so the policy’s fungi-and-bacteria exclusion could not defeat a duty to defend based solely on the pleadings, but extrinsic evidence could still be relevant to the stayed indemnity issues; it also found that Ramos lacked standing to invoke Florida’s Claims Administration Statute against the insurer’s late-notice and cooperation defenses and that Count IX failed to identify any specific policy provision or coverage defense, rendering it too vague to state a viable declaratory-judgment claim). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-01673-114-8-cv

Commercial General Liability

• GuideOne National Ins. Co. v. BranamJames Construction & Restoration, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-00336-JSM-PRL (M.D. of Fla., Nov. 6, 2026-Lammens, J.) (denying without prejudice GuideOne National Insurance Company’s motion for default judgment against BranamJames Construction & Restoration, Inc. in its insurance coverage declaratory judgment action, and reasoning that because the co-defendants, Raymond Rauch and Amy Rauch, had appeared and were actively contesting coverage under the same commercial general liability policy, entering a default judgment against BranamJames Construction & Restoration, Inc. at this stage could create inconsistent judgments regarding the parties’ rights and obligations under the insurance policy, contrary to the principles articulated in related Eleventh Circuit authority).
  https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-00336-16-5-cv
• Zurich American Ins. Co. a/s/o ISS Facility Services, Inc. v. Saet Services, Corp., No. 8:24-cv-2171-JLB-SPF (M.D. of Fla., Nov. 6, 2026-Badalementi, J.) (denying Zurich American Insurance Co.’s motion to reopen the case and reinstate its alternative claims and denying as moot its request for a Rule 54(b) judgment, holding that its prior summary-judgment order and amended final judgment fully resolved the case by awarding Zurich American Insurance Co., as subrogee of ISS Facility Services, Inc. and Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., all of the relief it sought against Saet Services Corp., and reasoning that the remaining claims for common-law indemnity, contribution, and equitable subrogation were properly dismissed as moot because the judgment already awarded the full $1.35 million settlement payment, attorneys’ fees, and later prejudgment interest, and Zurich American Insurance Co. failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) or show that the judgment was nonfinal and subject to revision under Rule 54(b)).
  https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-02171-100-8-cv

Commercial Property Insurance

Royal Foot, LLC v. Vantage Risk Specialty Ins. Co., No. 2:26-cv-2616-KCD-NPM (M.D. of Fla., Nov. 6, 2026-Mizell, J.) (granting Royal Foot, LLC’s motion to remand, finding that diversity jurisdiction was lacking because non-diverse defendant Tower Hill Insurance Group, LLC remained a party and Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance Company failed to establish fraudulent joinder, and reasoning that Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance Company improperly omitted Tower Hill Insurance Group, LLC from its notice of removal, offered only conclusory assertions rather than clear and convincing evidence that no viable claim existed against Tower Hill, and therefore had no objectively reasonable basis for removal, warranting an award of fees and costs and a show-cause order directed to defense counsel). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-02616-23-2-cv

Procedural-Auto Insurance

Myers v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., No. 8:26-cv-01589-CEH-CPT (M.D. of Fla., Nov. 3, 2026-Edwards Honeywell, J.) (remanding the case to the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida, finding that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold required for federal diversity jurisdiction, and reasoning that the evidence relied upon by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, including $31,316.18 in medical expenses, a $1,000,000 policy-limit demand, a civil remedy notice, future treatment projections, and unspecified damages claims, was too speculative and lacked sufficiently concrete numerical support to demonstrate that the jurisdictional amount was met). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-01589-12-8-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.