UM Insurance
Daniels v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, No. 8:26-cv-2526-KKM-AEP (M.D. of Fla., Sept. 16, 2026- Kimball Mizelle, J.) (remanding Allison Daniels’s lawsuit against The Travelers Indemnity Company of America to Florida state court, holding that the insurer failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and reasoning that the complaint alleged only unspecified damages, and Travelers relied primarily on a pre-suit demand letter showing approximately $25,000 in medical and related expenses plus a demand for uninsured/underinsured motorist policy limits; without more concrete evidence of damages, the policy-limits demand and generalized injury allegations were insufficient to show that more than $75,000 was actually in controversy). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-02526-6-8-cv
Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Reinberger, No. 2D2024-2657 (2nd Dist. of Fla., Sept. 18, 2026- Morris, J.) (affirming the judgment in part but reversing the award of most future medical expenses, holding that only the portion related to future medication costs could stand because the evidence did not show with reasonable certainty that the plaintiff would incur the other proposed treatments, and reasoning that Florida law allows recovery only for future medical expenses that are reasonably certain to be incurred, and the life care planner’s opinions relied on speculative possibilities (“may,” “could,” and “if”), while both the treating provider and the plaintiff testified that several recommended procedures and therapies were unlikely or not planned, leaving no evidentiary basis for most of the future medical-expense award). https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2495386/opinion/Opinion_2024-2657.pdf
Marine Cargo Insurance
Alexander Marine Co., Ltd. v. Fubon Ins. Co., LTD, No. 4D2025-2413 (4th Dist. of Fla., Sept. 16, 2026- Shepherd, J.) (reversing the dismissal of the insured’s breach-of-contract action against Fubon Insurance Company, Ltd. and remanding the case, holding that the marine insurance policies’ forum-selection clause did not require the dispute to be litigated exclusively in Taiwan, and reasoning that the clause stating disputes were “Subject to Taiwanese Law and Jurisdiction” was merely permissive because it lacked mandatory or exclusive language such as “shall,” “must,” “exclusive,” or “only,” and therefore constituted consent to Taiwanese jurisdiction without excluding litigation in other forums, including Florida). https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2495270/opinion/Opinion_2025-2413.pdf
Commercial Motor Carrier Liability Insurance
Prime Property and Casualty Ins. Inc. v. All Season Logistics LLC, et al., No. 26-cv-22120-ALTMAN/Hernandez (S.D. of Fla., Sept. 14, 2026- Hernandez, J.) (granting in part and denying in part Prime Property & Casualty Insurance Inc.’s motion to strike affirmative defenses, allowing Ford’s estoppel-based first affirmative defense to remain while striking his second affirmative defense concerning indemnification under the MCS-90 endorsement and his withdrawn third defense, and reasoning that the first defense was legally recognized and sufficiently pled to provide fair notice, making its ultimate merits inappropriate for resolution on a motion to strike, whereas the indemnification defense raised issues distinct from the insurer’s duty to defend and was not ripe because liability had not yet been established in the underlying litigation). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_26-cv-22120/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_26-cv-22120-1.pdf
Auto Insurance
Oxonian, et al. v. Geico General Ins. Co., No. 8:24-cv-013510MSS-AAS (M.D. of Fla., Sept. 14, 2026- Scriven, J.) (granting summary judgment in favor of GEICO General Insurance Company and entered final judgment against the plaintiffs, holding that they could not maintain a third-party bad-faith claim arising from the excess wrongful-death judgment against GEICO’s insured, William Gilbert Strickland, and reasoning that a third-party bad-faith claim is derivative of the insured’s damages, and because Strickland’s bankruptcy orders insulated him from personal liability and limited any recovery to insurance proceeds, he suffered no recoverable damages from the excess judgment; therefore, neither he nor the plaintiffs had standing to pursue a bad-faith action against GEICO). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-01351-67-8-cv
Life Insurance/Procedure
Drouhard v. Grange Life Ins. Co, et al., No. 2:26-cv-2098-SPC-NPM (M.D. of Fla., Sept. 14, 2026- Polster Chappell, J.) (remanding the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the defendants failed to prove that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 in Alexandra J. Drouhard’s action seeking to void or rescind a life insurance policy allegedly procured without her consent, and reasoning that although the policy carried a $250,000 death benefit, Drouhard did not own the policy, pay the premiums, or stand to receive any policy proceeds, so rescission would provide her only nominal relief by restoring the status quo rather than conferring a financial benefit approaching the jurisdictional threshold). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026-02098-57-2-cv
Commercial Property Insurance
The Breakwater Commons Ass’n, Inc. v. Empire Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-31-KCD-KRH (M.D. of Fla., Sept. 16, 2026- Dudek, J.) (granting in part and denying in part The Breakwater Commons Association, Inc.’s motion for attorney’s fees, holding that Breakwater, as the prevailing party in its insurance coverage and breach-of-contract action against Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, was entitled to trial-level attorney’s fees but not fees incurred in connection with Empire’s unsuccessful interlocutory appeal, and reasoning that, although Florida’s insurance fee-shifting statutes created Breakwater’s substantive right to fees, Breakwater Commons Association, Inc. failed to comply with Eleventh Circuit Rule 39-2, which required a timely appellate fee application or a qualifying exception; because no exception applied and no application was filed, the district court lacked authority to award appellate attorney’s fees). https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020-00031-235-2-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.