Homeowners Insurance
Florio v. Florida Ins. Guarantee Ass’n, Inc., No. 5D2025-0464 (5th Dist. of Fla., Oct 2, 2026- Kilbane, J.) (reversing the directed verdict entered against Sam Florio on his personal property claim, vacating the order limiting his damages evidence, and remanding for further proceedings, holding that Florio presented sufficient evidence for a jury to determine his personal property losses and that evidence of damages should not have been capped at trial by Florida Insurance Guaranty Association’s statutory liability limit, and reasoning that Florio’s testimony, photographs, receipts, and admitted inventory-related evidence were enough to support a jury finding as to at least some personal property damages, making a directed verdict improper, and that FIGA’s $500,000 statutory cap limits only the amount FIGA must pay after verdict, not the amount of damages an insured may present and have determined by a jury). https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2496126/opinion/Opinion_2025-0464.pdf
Letteri v. Safepoint Ins. Co., No. 6D2025-0045 (6th Dist. of Fla., Oct. 2, 2026- Traver, CJ.) (affirming summary judgment for Safepoint Insurance Company, holding that its post-appraisal payment of policy limits was not a “confession of judgment” and therefore did not entitle Lonne Letteri to attorney’s fees under former section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes, and reasoning that Safepoint had accepted coverage, properly invoked appraisal, timely paid the appraisal award, and did not force Letteri to sue to obtain benefits, making the lawsuit an unnecessary “race to the courthouse;” moreover, former section 627.70152 merely permitted suit after ninety days without completed appraisal and did not create an appraisal deadline or an independent right to attorney’s fees). https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2496159/opinion/Opinion_2025-0045.pdf
Property Insurance
Florida Ins. Guarantee Ass’n, Inc. v. Restore All, LLC, a/a/o Antonio Gonzalez, No. 4D2025-1518 (4th Dist. of Fla., Sept. 30, 2026- Shaw, J.) (reversing the county court’s denial of Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, Inc.’s motions to vacate a default and default final judgment, holding that both were void and must be vacated on remand, and reasoning that because FIGA had filed a notice of appearance, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(b) required notice of any application for default before a default could be entered, and the trial court’s self-executing order threatening automatic default without further notice violated due process and the rule’s notice requirement). https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2496011/opinion/Opinion_2025-1518.pdf
Auto Insurance
Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Locklair, et al., No. 8:25-cv-2964-TPB-SPF (M.D. of Fla., Sept. 29, 2026- Barber, DJ) (granting summary judgment for Safeco and declaring that it timely tendered its $10,000 bodily injury liability policy limit within ninety days of receiving notice of the claim, thereby satisfying the requirements of section 624.155(4)(a), Florida Statutes, and reasoning that Safeco did more than merely offer to pay; it actually issued the policy-limits check and sent it by UPS to claimant’s counsel within the statutory period, which constituted a valid tender regardless of whether the package was ultimately received, and the accompanying proposed release did not invalidate the tender because payment was not conditioned on executing the release). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025-02964-83-8-cv
D&O Insurance
Millenial Specialty Ins., et al. v. Hirsch, et al., No. 8:24-cv-1661-KKM-CPT (M.D. of Fla., Sept. 30, 2026- Tuite, MJ) (granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ Rule 37(e) motion for spoliation sanctions, holding that Juliana Rosas-Litourgis and Matthew McKenna intentionally destroyed electronically stored information after litigation was reasonably foreseeable and therefore were subject to an adverse-inference sanction, while Leanna Marciano was liable only for lesser sanctions and no intent-to-deprive finding was made as to Jeffrey Hirsch, and reasoning that the defendants had a duty to preserve evidence once they anticipated litigation and received cease-and-desist letters, that critical ESI and metadata were irretrievably lost and could not be restored through discovery, and that the circumstances surrounding Rosas-Litourgis’s factory reset and McKenna’s deletion of more than 240 files demonstrated an intent to deprive the plaintiffs of evidence, whereas Hirsch’s auto-deletion setting and Marciano’s reset did not sufficiently establish such intent). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-01661-67-8-cv
Long-Term Disability Insurance
Krambeck v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, No. 8:24-cv-2102-TPB-NHA (M.D. of Fla., Sept. 30, 2026- Barber, DJ) (denying both parties’ summary-judgment motions on Briana Krambeck’s ERISA claim for long-term disability benefits and set the case for a bench trial, holding that genuine factual disputes, including conflicting medical opinions about whether she could perform any gainful occupation, precluded judgment as a matter of law under the applicable de novo standard of review, and further holding that Washington’s ban on discretionary clauses applied because the governing policy was replaced by a 2020 amendment, requiring de novo review rather than deferential review; thus, granting summary judgment to Briana Krambeck on Unum Life Insurance Company of America’s reimbursement counterclaim to the extent it sought recovery of already-spent disability payments because ERISA permits only equitable recovery from identifiable funds, which no longer existed). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-02102-53-8-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.