Wind and Flood Insurance:
- Allstar Properties, LLC v. Frontline Insurance Unlimited, First Protective Ins. Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-116 (U.S. Middle District – Oct 14, 2025 –Judge Kyle C. Dudek) (granting summary judgment in favor of First Protective Ins. Co., ruling that Allstar Properties, LLC failed to submit a signed and sworn proof of loss within the statutory deadline required under the National Flood Insurance Program and holding that Allstar’s state-law breach of contract claim was preempted by federal law, thereby barring recovery under the flood policy.)
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-00116-77-2-cv
Property and Casualty Insurance:
- Christopher M. Rebholz, et al. v. AIG Property Casualty Co., Case No. 2:25-cv-204 (U.S. Middle District – Oct 15, 2025 – Judge John E. Steele) (granting AIG Property Casualty Co.’s motion to join indispensable parties, ordering the plaintiffs to amend their complaint within seven days to include the trustees of their respective living trusts, who are the actual property owners, and reasoning that because the trusts hold legal title to the insured property, their inclusion is necessary to afford complete relief and avoid potential prejudice, and failure to amend would result in dismissal of the case via judgment on the pleadings.)
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-00204-44-2-cv
Homeowner’s Insurance:
- Jacob A. Myers, etc., et al. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, Case No. 2:25-cv-928 (U.S. Middle District – Oct 15, 2025 –Judge Kyle C. Dudek) (denying the plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, finding that Jacob and Barbara Myers failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest’s decision not to renew their homeowner’s policy, and reasoning that while the plaintiffs valued the policy’s “lifetime continuation provision,” they could obtain alternative coverage and any resulting inconvenience or increased premiums could be remedied through monetary compensation, which does not meet the standard for irreparable injury.)
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-00928-4-2-cv
Auto Insurance:
- Mondamin Wilkins, v. Progressive Select Ins. Co., Case No. 8:24-cv-1793 (U.S. Middle District – Oct 17, 2025 – Judge Tom Barber) (granting in part and denied in part Progressive Select Ins. Co.’s motion to compel, ordering the production of some—but not all—documents withheld by the plaintiff’s former counsel, Tragos Law, in this first-party bad faith insurance case, and finding that while certain documents were protected by work-product privilege, others related to the underlying uninsured motorist litigation were discoverable due to the nature of bad faith claims, which often require a broad inquiry into the insurer’s handling of the claim.)
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-01793-90-8-cv
Procedural Related:
- Pedro E. Rodriguez, et al. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Case No. 2:25-cv-741 (U.S. Middle District – Oct 14, 2025 – Judge Nicholas P. Mizell) (remanding the case to state court, finding that Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. failed to meet its burden of proving that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold required for federal diversity jurisdiction, and concluding that Westchester’s reliance on speculative attorney’s fees and incomplete replacement-cost estimates was insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.)
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-00741-33-2-cv
- Daniel Barros v. The Difference Ins. Corp., as assignee of Viridiana Garcia, Case No. 3D25-0153 (3rd DCA – Oct 15, 2025 – Judges C.J. Scales and Fernandez, J. Gordo) (affirming the trial court’s orders, holding that Daniel Barros failed to preserve his objection to the general magistrate’s appointment and that the magistrate acted within the court’s reserved jurisdiction to enforce a clear and specific settlement agreement, and upholding the civil contempt order against Barros due to the absence of a transcript from the show cause hearing, which rendered the appellate record insufficient to demonstrate reversible error.)
https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2465822/opinion/Opinion_2025-0153.pdf
- Ruth Libert, et al. v. Federal Ins. Co., Case No. 6:25-cv-1145 (U.S. Middle District – Oct 17, 2025 –Judge Wendy W. Berger) (denying Ruth and David Libert’s motion to remand, ruling that Federal Ins. Co. properly removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction and finding that the removal was timely and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, satisfying the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.)
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-01145-21-6-cv
- William Crescenzo v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Case No. 8:25-cv-01542 (U.S. Middle District – Oct 17, 2025 –Judge Steven D. Merryday) (dismissing William Crescenzo’s complaint for lack of standing, finding that he failed to establish a direct injury because the vehicle at issue was purchased by Cress Collision Services—not Crescenzo himself, and concluding that since Crescenzo was not a party to the transaction and did not receive any warranties or representations from State Farm, he lacked Article III standing to sue under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act or the Commercial Code.)
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-01542-26-8-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.