STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
LISA GIBBONS, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
State Farm challenged the trial court's decision to allow a circuit court lawsuit by an insured who alleged the insurer violated a statutory prohibition on including bad faith and punitive damages in rate calculations. The court held that challenges to insurance rates must proceed exclusively through administrative review, not circuit court litigation.
The exclusive remedy for asserting a claim based on a purported violation of section 627.0651 is administrative review pursuant to section 627.371, Florida Statutes, and the exclusive jurisdiction for judicial review is in the District Court of Appeal under section 120.68(2)(a). Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, providing for civil remedies against insurers who knowingly charge excessive rates, does not apply to challenges of the rate-making process itself. The circuit court complaint should be dismissed.
[1] Challenges to approved insurance rates must be pursued through administrative review, and subsequent judicial review lies exclusively with the District Court of Appeal.
[2] A civil remedy statute for excessive insurance rates does not apply to challenges of the rate-making process itself.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the exclusive remedy for asserting a claim based on a purported violation of section 627.0651, is to seek administrative review pursuant to section 627.371, Florida Statutes (2002). Furthermore, once administrative review is completed, the exclusive jurisdiction for judicial review is in the District Court of Appeal.”
Establishes that statutory framework mandates exclusive administrative process and appellate court jurisdiction for rate-related claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLisa Gibbons sued State Farm in circuit court alleging that State Farm violated section 627.0651(12), Florida Statutes, by including monies paid on ba…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exclusive Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
TORPY, J.
Respondent, Lisa Gibbons, sued her insurer, Petitioner, State Farm, alleging that State Farm had not complied with section 627.0651(12), Florida Statutes (2002), which prohibits insurance companies from including in their rate base monies paid on bad faith and punitive damages claims and related attorney’s fees and taxable costs. She alleged that she tried administrative action, but that the Department of Insurance (DOI) basically ignored her, resulting in her filing this suit in the circuit court.
State Farm moved for a judgment on the pleadings on the basis that the only way to challenge approved rates is in an administrative proceeding in the Office of Insurance Regulation (“OIR”), the former Florida Department of Insurance. Rather than dismissing the claim, the trial court stayed the proceedings to allow Gibbons to institute an administrative action. Thereafter, Gibbons instituted an administrative proceeding, but expressly told the OIR that she wished to have her claim rejected so that she could return to the circuit court and resume her action against State Farm.
When the OIR granted Gibbons’ wish, determining that, based on the information that she had presented, there was no relief that could be afforded to her, Gibbons returned to the circuit court and asked it to lift the stay so that she could go forward with her action. The circuit court agreed, and State Farm timely sought certiorari review. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, section 4(b), Fla. Const.; Department of Children and Families v. L.D., 840 So. 2d 432, 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). We grant the petition. Contrary to the position taken by Gibbons, the exclusive remedy for asserting a claim based on a purported violation of section 627.0651, is to seek administrative review pursuant to section 627.371, Florida Statutes (2002). Furthermore, once administrative review is completed, the exclusive jurisdiction for judicial review is in the District Court of Appeal. § 120.68(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2002), which provides for a civil remedy against insurers who knowingly charge excessive rates, does not apply to Gibbons’ challenge to the rate-making process.
Because Gibbons failed to pursue and exhaust her administrative remedy and failed to seek judicial review in the correct court, her complaint in the circuit court should be dismissed. See Florida Welding & Erection Serv., Inc. v. American Mut. Ins. Co. of Boston, 285 So. 2d 386, 389 (Fla.1973).
The petition is granted, and this cause is remanded with instructions that the complaint be dismissed.
PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.
PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Reaume, 937 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…d paid-in-full discount was an illegal finance charge. Progressive thereafter filed this petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the summary judgment. We grant the petition. This case is similar to State Farm Mutual Automobile v. Gibbons, 860 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Gibbons sued State Farm alleging that it had violated section 627.0651(12), Florida Statutes (2002), which prohibits companies from including in their rate base monies paid on punitive and bad faith claims and related costs and…1 / 2
-
Serchay v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 25 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…) (insured alleging that her insurer charged excessive rate by violating statute prohibiting insurers from seeking excessive premium finance charges was required to first seek relief with OIR under section 627.371); State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Gibbons, 860 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (insured alleging that her insurer charged excessive rate by violating statute prohibiting insurers from considering monies paid on bad faith and punitive damage claims when determining rates was making “challenge to the rate-mak…
-
Asseff v. Citizens Prop. Ins., 159 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…) (insured alleging that her insurer charged excessive rate by violating statute prohibiting insurers from seeking excessive premium finance charges was required to first seek relief with OIR under section 627.371); State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Gibbons, 860 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (insured alleging that her insurer charged excessive rate by violating stat [*332] ute prohibiting insurers from considering monies paid on bad faith and punitive damage claims when determining rates was making “challenge to the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Welding & Erection Serv., Inc. v. Am. Mut. Ins. Co. OF Boston, 285 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1973)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. L.D. and J.S., 840 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)