CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16362, 2011 WL 4949815
MAY, C.J. An award of prejudgment interest, pursuant to section 627.70131(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), and a subsequent award of attorney’s fees and costs, is challenged in this appeal....
...ence, $23,670.87. The insureds then filed a “Motion to Determine Entitlement to Interest” using the same case number assigned to their petition for appointment of an umpire. The insurer responded that an award of interest was not permitted under section 627.70131(5)(a), which provides that “this subsection shall not form the sole basis for a private cause of action.” § 627.70131(5)(a), Fla....
...The final judgment provided: 1. The Court confirms the appraisal award in the amount of $55,413.19. It is agreed by the parties that State Farm paid all amounts owed pursuant to the appraisal award, except for statutory interest. 2. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § [] 627.70131(5)(a), State Farm owes interest, because it did not make payment until after 90 days from the time it received notice of the claim....
...Land & Sea Petroleum, Inc. v. Bus. Specialists, Inc.,
53 So.3d 348, 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The insurer argues the insureds had two motives for filing the motion to confirm the already-paid appraisal award: (1) to create a cause of action for statutory interest under section
627.70131(5)(a); and *289 (2) to establish a basis for attorney’s fees, pursuant to section
627.428(1)....
...ppraisal award, which they then did. However, as Esposito explains, a trial court cannot confirm an appraisal award that has already been paid and thereby create a basis for an award attorney’s fees. What differentiates this case from Espo-sito is section 627.70131(5)(a), which addresses interest....
...Interest is payable when the claim or portion of the claim is paid. Failure to comply with this subsection constitutes a violation of this code. However, failure to comply with this subsection shall not form the sole basis for a private cause of action. § 627.70131(5)(a), Fla....
...We find the last sentence of the statute closes the door on any insured unless there is a viable independent cause of action. Because a trial court cannot confirm an appraisal award that has already been paid, and no independent cause of action exists to award statutory interest under section 627.70131(5)(a), the final judgment must be reversed....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90769, 2008 WL 4294396
...Dome filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim [D4]. The counterclaim consists of four counts: Count I for Declaratory Judgment, Count II for Breach of Contract, Count III for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Count IV for Violation of Section 627.70131, Florida Statutes....
..., Dome cannot state a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because no such cause of action exists under Florida law. Consequently, Count III of the counterclaim should be dismissed. Count IVViolation of § 627.70131, Florida Statutes Must be Dismissed In support of its motion to dismiss Count IV of the counterclaim, QBE asserts that section 627.70131 cannot be the basis for a claim by Dome for two reasons: (1) the statute explicitly states that "failure to comply with this subsection shall not form the sole basis for a private cause of action;" Fla. Stat. § 627.70131(5)(a); and (2) the statute was passed after the parties entered into the insurance contract....
...cause of action; and (2) the statute should be applied retroactively because it is both remedial and procedural. (emphasis added). Based on the plain language of the statute, Dome is precluded from bringing a claim that only seeks recovery based on section 627.70131....
...ve a person a right to judicial redress or relief against another." Black's Law Dictionary 221 (6th ed. 1990). In *1262 Count IV, the only facts that Dome pleads as the basis for its right to redress are the facts that would establish a violation of section 627.70131....
...Further, the statute specifically states that "except as otherwise expressly provided in this act, this act shall take effect upon becoming law." [4] 2007 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. 2007-90, § 29. Based on the plain language of the statute, Dome is precluded from bringing a separate cause of action based solely on section 627.70131, as its claims, if any, arose in 2005. Therefore, accepting all of Dome's allegations as true, it cannot state a cause of action because under section 627.70131 there is no cause of action based solely on that section of the statute....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 3614102
...policy conditions precedent after the denial of coverage.
-6-
Additionally, Homeowners Choice's reliance on the phrase "initial,
reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim" in section 627.70131(5)(a), Florida
Statutes (2014), is misplaced. Section 627.70131(5)(a) authorizes the inclusion of
prejudgment interest on "[a]ny payment of an initial or supplemental claim ....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 4086807, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12784
...to withhold payment for subsurface repairs until McKee entered into a contract for those
repairs. See Phillips,
134 So. 3d at 508.
McKee's failure to enter into a contract for subsurface repairs was a factor
outside Tower Hill's control that reasonably prevented payment. Section
627.70131(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), authorizes an award of prejudgment interest
on "[a]ny payment of an initial or supplemental claim or portion of such claim made 90
days after the insurer receives notice of the claim, or made more...
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...All three counts rely on the same operative set
of facts.
The decree Homeowners Choice seeks to appeal answers two
discrete questions in the affirmative: (1) that Homeowners Choice was
required to pay or deny the insureds’ claim within 90 days after Homeowners
Choice received notice of the claim pursuant to section 627.70131, Florida
2
Statutes; and (2) that the failure of Homeowners Choice to pay or deny the
claim within 90 days constitutes a violation of Florida law and a breach of the
subject insurance contr...
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...1
Insurer contends that insureds did not overcome the presumption of
prejudice to insurer by the breaches of the policy provisions. Insurer
points to its obligation to make a claim denial decision prior to the
expiration of the statutory period contained in section 627.70131(5)(a),
Florida Statutes (2020), which provides:
Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial,
reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a
policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny...
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Farm homeowner’s insurance policy provided coverage for water damage incurred
when a toilet in their home’s guest bathroom backed up and overflowed. As a
general allegation, the complaint alleged that State Farm had “wholly denied
coverage under § 627.70131(5)(a), Florida Statute[s].” 1,2
1
The statute provides, in relevant part:
Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial ....
...asonably prevent such
payment. . . . Failure to comply with this subsection constitutes a
violation of this code. However, failure to comply with this subsection
does not form the sole basis for a private cause of action.
§ 627.70131(5)(a), Fla....
...This motion to compel appraisal remains pending.
2
On June 28, 2020, the Hills filed a notice of deposition duces tecum that: (i)
sought to depose a State Farm corporate representative with knowledge of State
Farm’s “compliance” with section 627.70131(5)(a) of the Florida Statutes; and (ii)
requested the production of State Farm’s “protocol, policy and guidelines” for
complying with section 627.70131(5)(a)....
...he first-party
dispute regarding insurance coverage. See Desai, 106 So. 3d at 6; Atl. Hosp. of Fla.,
LLC,
93 So. 3d at 503.
While the Hills note they have not pled a bad faith claim in this action, their
requested discovery with respect to section
627.70131(5)(a) is nevertheless
impermissible....
...underlying coverage case has not been resolved and no bad faith case is pending”).
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court’s July 23, 2020 order
requiring discovery of State Farm’s protocol, policy and guidelines for complying
with section 627.70131(5)(a) constitutes “a departure from the essential
4
requirements of law causing irreparable harm for which there is no remedy on
appeal.” Atl....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
627.7142 and that any alleged violation of section
627.70131 was not a breach of the policy and, therefore
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 811677, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3504
...d to prove that Great Lakes had breached the insurance contract as a matter of law. The trial court disagreed, determining that the trial court’s October 8, 2008, order provided JHB with the authority to file the policy claims. Further, relying on section 627.70131(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), which sets forth a ninety-day time limitation for the payment or denial of certain types of insurance claims, the trial court determined there was sufficient evidence to establish that Great Lakes bre...
...Contrary to the trial court’s determination, there is no ninety-day time limitation governing this insurance contract. Importantly, the insurance policy does not contain a time limitation for the adjustment of a claim. Rather, the ninety-day period relied on by the trial court was derived from section 627.70131(5)(a), Florida Statutes, which states: *303 Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of a property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay such claim or a portion of the claim is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such payment.... On its surface, section 627.70131(5)(a) would seem to govern the instant set of facts. Upon closer examination, however, it is clearly inapplicable for two reasons. First, the plain language of section 627.70131(4) specifies that “[f|or purposes of this section, the term ‘insurer’ means any residential property insurer.” Because Great Lakes in this situation acted as a marine insurer rather than a residential property insurer, it was not subject to this section’s ninety-day requirement....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
that neither Tracey nor its progeny violate section
627.70131(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2019), we decline
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9693, 2016 WL 3450426
...Thus, we reversed an award of
prejudgment interest because no payment was due until McKee executed a repair
contract. Id. We stated:
McKee's failure to enter into a contract for subsurface repairs
was a factor outside Tower Hill's control that reasonably
prevented payment. Section 627.70131(5)(a), Florida
Statutes (2013), authorizes an award of prejudgment interest
on "[a]ny payment of an initial or supplemental claim or
portion of such claim made 90 days after the insurer...
...whichever is later." (Emphasis added). Therefore, the trial
court's award of prejudgment interest on the subsurface
damage award was premature.
Id. at 4 (alteration in original).
Interestingly, section 627.70131(5)(a) also provides that "[i]f there is a right
to prejudgment interest, the insured shall select whether to receive prejudgment interest
or interest [as delineated] under this subsection." This provision clarifies that section
627.70131(5)(a) is not necessarily a statutory source for prejudgment interest.
Nevertheless, McKee's result remains correct because Tower Hill had no payment
obligation absent a contract for subsurface repairs.
- 11 -
Allstate Insurance Co....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...il. The email included a
copy of the AOB agreement and an invoice for $1,995.00 in services
rendered. As part of the claim, the insurer stated it “look[ed] forward to
hearing from [the insurer] within the next 14 days in compliance with Fla.
Stat. 627.70131.” The insurer admitted it received the claim....
...Moreover, beyond the assignee’s entitlement to payment and the plain
language of the AOB agreement, the insurer ignored statutory law. On
April 18, 2018, the assignee placed the insurer on notice of its claim and
that it was legally entitled to receive payment. Under section
627.70131(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2018), the insurer was required to
acknowledge receipt of the assignee’s benefits claim within 14 days, unless
payment was made within that time period....
...The April 18, 2018 claim was
8
never acknowledged beyond the indirect response of the check being
mailed (to the insured, not the assignee) on July 25, 2018, well beyond 14
days. This was also beyond the 90 days within which, pursuant to section
627.70131(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2018), the insurer was required to issue
or deny payment following receipt of an insurance claim.
The insurer does not dispute that the insured incurred a loss covered
by her home insurance policy with the insurer....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
against private causes of action contained in section
627.70131(5), Florida Statutes (2020). Taylor now argues
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...urer.
Ninety-three days after the public adjuster had reported the claim, the
insurer contacted the public adjuster about inspecting the insureds’
property. However, the public adjuster believed the insurer’s request
was untimely pursuant to section 627.70131(5)(a), Florida Statutes
(2017):
Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial,
reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a
policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a
portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by
factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably
prevent such payment. …
§ 627.70131(5)(a), Fla....
...In response, the insurer filed a
summary judgment motion arguing the insureds had not permitted a
property inspection as the policy required. The law firm did not file a
response or affidavit on the insureds’ behalf arguing that the insurer’s
request to inspect the property had been untimely under section
627.70131(5)(a)....
...e … to the [insurer’s] [m]otion
for [s]ummary [j]udgment or [a]ffidavit [o]pposing the
[insurer’s motion] and failing to address [the insurer’s]
failure to inspect the [p]roperty or pay out the insurance
claim before [section 627.70131(5)(a)’s] [ninety-]day deadline
….
(paragraph numbering deleted).
The public adjuster’s Count 2 against the law firm was for
malpractice....
...Count 2 sought to recover the public adjuster’s damages
“as a result of [the law firm’s] breach of its professional duty to [the
insureds],” including the failure to respond to the insurer’s summary
judgment motion or address the insurer’s failure to comply with section
627.70131(5)(a)’s ninety-day deadline to inspect the property or pay the
claim.
3
The public adjuster’s Count 3 against the law firm was for common
law indemnification. Count 3 similarly alleged the law firm had failed to
file a response to the insurer’s summary judgment motion or address the
insurer’s failure to comply with 627.70131(5)(a)’s ninety-day deadline to
inspect the property or pay the claim, and the public adjuster was
“without any fault as to the [law firm’s] actions,” for which it “has
suffered damages.”
D....
...The law firm’s motion argued, as to all of the public adjuster’s third-
party counts, the public adjuster had been solely responsible for not
allowing the insurer to inspect the insureds’ property, based on the
public adjuster’s errant belief that the expiration of section
627.70131(5)(a)’s ninety-day deadline permitted the public adjuster to
refuse the inspection.
As to the public adjuster’s Count 1 for breach of intended beneficiary
contract, the law firm argued no evidence showed the insureds and the...
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...property to its pre-loss
condition pursuant to the Policy?
3. Did Plaintiffs prove by the greater weight of the
evidence that Defendant failed to confirm coverage for the
covered claim and failed to comply with Fla. Stat. 627.70131,
including by failing to confirm coverage within 90 days after it
received notice of the claim?
4....
...2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)). "Once the
insured establishes a loss apparently within the terms of an 'all risks'
3 We note that the Vastas did not allege that the sole basis for the
breach of the policy was untimeliness in remitting payment. Accord §
627.70131(5)(a), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...cause of action as well as a statutory claim. Following a hearing on
State Farm’s motion to dismiss, the court entered an order
dismissing with prejudice both of Taylor’s claims based on a
limitation against private causes of action contained in section
627.70131(5), Florida Statutes (2020). Taylor now argues that the
court erred in dismissing her contractual claim based on that
statutory limitation. We agree.
We begin our analysis by looking at the language of the Policy
and of section 627.70131(5)(a) (“section 5(a)”)....
...we receive notice of an initial, reopened, or
supplemental property insurance claim from you and
no factors beyond our control would reasonably
prevent us from making payment, interest will be paid
in accordance with Section 627.70131(5) of the Florida
Insurance Code.
At the time the Policy was in effect, 1 section (5)(a) provided:
(a) Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice
of an initial, reopened, or supplemental prope...
...If there is a right to prejudgment interest, the
insured shall select whether to receive prejudgment
interest or interest under this subsection. Interest is
payable when the claim or portion of the claim is paid.
Failure to comply with this subsection constitutes a
1 Section 627.70131 was amended in 2021 and subsection
(5)(a) was renumbered as subsection (7)(a).
3
violation of this code. However, failure to comply with
this subsection does not form the sole basis for a private
cause of action.
§ 627.70131(5)(a), Fla....
