CopyCited 11 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 11313, 1990 WL 83332
...vided by the Florida Insurance Guaranty Act does not apply. §
626.924. The Liability Risk Retention Act has created another category of insurer which may legally transact insurance business within Florida — the risk retention group. See Fla.Stat. §
624.11(2) (risk retention groups, organized under the provisions of the Act and properly licensed and authorized in an appropriate jurisdiction, may transact insurance in Florida, subject to selected provisions of the Florida Insurance Code)....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2819, 2002 WL 246669
...decisions are irrelevant and that the court need not employ choice of law analysis because the Florida legislature has included a choice of law provision in the Insurance Code that is to govern all insurance companies conducting business in Florida. Section 624.11(1) of the Florida Statutes provides, "No person shall transact insurance in this state ......
...without complying with the applicable provisions of this code." According to Pastor, this language indicates the legislature's intent to bind all insurers to every provision of the Insurance Code. Pastor's argument is flawed in many respects. First, it is important to note that Fla.Stat. § 624.11(1) qualifies the governance of the Insurance Code with the *1307 phrase "the applicable provisions of this code." Whether Fla.Stat. § 624.115 is applicable to this case is the question that the court is attempting to address in this choice of law analysis. If the result of a court's choice of law exercise is that Florida law applies, then Fla.Stat. § 624.115 will be "applicable" under § 624.11(1), and an insurer will have to comply with the Code....
...McDonald,
676 So.2d 12, 17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The court, therefore, must presume that a statute "was not intended to alter the common law other than by what was clearly and plainly specified in the statute." Ady v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp.,
675 So.2d 577, 581 (Fla. 1996). Section
624.11(1) does not "clearly and plainly specify" that the legislature intended to abrogate the common law lex loci contractus rule....
..." as it did in BDO Seidman, or that the "law of this state" would govern all aspects of insurance, regardless of the place of the execution of the contract, as it did in Sanchez. Absent such a clear expression, this court will not construe Fla.Stat. § 624.11(1) as an abrogation of the common law choice of law rules....
...carry out the implied contractual obligation of good faith. Otherwise, under Pastor's interpretation of Florida's Insurance Code, an insured conceivably could bring a bad faith claim under the law of any state having a provision similar to Fla.Stat. § 624.11(1) and where the insurer transacts business....
...For example, an insurer who enters into a contract with an insured in California and who transacts business in California, Florida, New York, and New Jersey, potentially can be liable to the insured for a bad faith violation under the law of all four states if each of these states has enacted a provision like Fla.Stat. § 624.11(1), which provides, "No person shall transact insurance in this state ......
...another state). III. Conclusion Under the doctrine of lex loci contractus, which must be applied here pursuant to Florida's choice of law rules, New Jersey governs Pastor's bad faith claim. In his complaint, Pastor seeks relief only under Fla.Stat. § 624.115....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 415, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2148, 2016 WL 5477795
...She further alleged a claim under section
626.9541(1), Florida Statutes (2006), or Florida’s Unfair Insurance Trade Practice Act, in which wrongfulness or bad faith is an issue. Id. In addition, Colella alleged that State Farm acted in “bad faith” as defined in section
624.11, Florida Statutes (2006)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 511079
...this appeal. The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in entering final summary judgment in favor of AIC on the Florida policy, policy number 210SX26262439, and in favor of Aetna on its excess policy, policy number 210EX210015296. We agree. Section 624.11(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that "[n]o person shall transact insurance in this state, or relative to a subject of insurance resident, located, or to be performed in this state, without complying with the applicable provisions...
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2048349
...ulating insurance rates to ensure they are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory, and to "protect policyholders and the public against the adverse effects of excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory insurance rates . . . " Section 624.11(1), Florida Statutes Providing that " [n]o person [1] shall transact insurance in this state ....
...Pursuant to statute, OIR could have suspended Allstate from conducting any insurance business in Florida for its failure to comply with the insurance code by its refusal to produce the documents, and to make the documents requested by OIR "freely available." See § 624.11(1), Fla....
...Allstate may lift the suspension at any time by simply producing the documents it is required by statute to "freely" produce in order to conduct insurance business in Florida. OIR places no extra burden on Allstate than the one Allstate voluntarily accepted when choosing to transact insurance in Florida. See § 624.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 148423
...NFRP has failed to demonstrate how that interpretation exceeded the authority of the Department or was clearly erroneous. We are therefore obliged to affirm the Department's declaration that NFRP's proposed activities would transact insurance without a license in violation of section 624.11, Florida Statutes (1987)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7435
...e., the Miller Act, and without respect to the laws of Florida. The Court concludes that this Florida statute is not to be construed so narrowly. Its impact is not limited to bonds required by the State of Florida. In any event the Florida legislature has put down the affirmative requirement in F.S. § 624.11, F.S.A., that: “No person shall transact insurance in Florida, or relative to a subject of insurance * * * to be performed in Florida without complying with the applicable provisions of this code.” (Emphasis added.) The Court also notes...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20544, 2015 WL 738031
...Seidman ... is erroneous and we disapprove ... to the extent [it] conflict[s] with our opinion today.”). . Implicitly conceding that Section
624.155(l)(b)(l) contains no provision overriding Florida's usual choice-of-law rules, the plaintiffs cite Section
624.11(1), which states, "No person shall transact insurance in this state ... without complying with the applicable provisions of this code.” The plaintiffs argue that under Section
624.11(1) "Chapter 624 [in its entirety and] by its own terms applies to all insurance companies transacting any insurance related activities in Florida, regardless of the type of policy, regardless of where the policy was issued or delivered, and regardless of the place where the claim arose." (Doc....
...11 at 5 (footnote omitted)) Describing the same argument as "flawed in many respects,” Pastor v. Union Central Life Insurance Co.,
184 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1306-07 (S.D.Fla.2002) (Gold, J.), considers and, at length, persuasively rejects the plaintiffs' argument. In short, Section
624.11(1) concerns only Chapter 624’s "applicable provisions,” but Florida's choice-of-law rules govern whether Section
624.155(l)(b)(l) is "applicable” in this action. Further, unlike the statute in BDO Seidman, which applied to “any civil action for damages filed in the courts of [Florida],” Section
624.11(1) fails to "clearly” override Florida's choice-of-law rules....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1448576, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6612
...It does not reflect the payments made in March and continues to allege that State Farm has refused to pay the claim. Count II attempts to allege a claim under Florida’s Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act, section
626.9541(1), Florida Statutes (2006), and for “bad faith” under section
624.11, Florida Statutes (2006)....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1990 WL 42178
...Florida’s Insurance Code states: “No person shall transact insurance in this state, or relative to a subject of insurance resident, located, or to be performed in this state, without complying with the applicable provisions of this code.” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 624.11(1) (West 1984)....
