(Gridview_Imagefull / Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services)
There is just not much return on investment in contesting the sufficiency of "facts and circumstances" allegations in a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (statutory bad faith) any more. That determination yields a "de novo standard of review" on appeal, meaning that an appellate panel's determination easily may be quite different from a trial judge's determination, as in the case of Apex Roofing & Restor., LLC v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 343 So. 3d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). That meant a lot of money spent for a pretty certain reversal; not much ROI in that.
The judicial determinations of sufficient "facts and circumstances" allegations are fact-specific, as would be expected. In Apex Roofing, these are the allegations that the appellate panel – unanimously – held were sufficient in a Civil Remedy Notice or CRN, and which the trial judge ruled were insufficient which led to the trial court's reversal on appeal here:
Apex's CRN related that State Farm had, among other things, suggested numerous “half-cures” to resolving the damage claim, including pricing for labor and materials that was inconsistent with marketplace pricing, made “lowball” offers as a precursor to invoking the appraisal process in order to cause additional delay, and received an invoice from Apex that detailed the actual work performed, with a specific amount necessary to resolve the claim. We hold that these allegations sufficiently complied with the requirements of section 624.155(3)(b) 2.
Apex Roofing, 343 So. 3d at 1227.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2022 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments