STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
IVONNE LAUGHLIN-ALFONSO, APPELLEE
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 appeals the denial of its motion for attorney's fees in an insurance dispute with its insured, Laughlin-Alfonso. The court reversed, holding that State Farm's nominal settlement offer was not made in bad faith because the insured failed to comply with policy conditions precedent and discovery requests, giving State Farm a reasonable basis to believe its exposure was minimal.
State Farm's nominal settlement offer was not made in bad faith because the insured's failure to comply with policy conditions precedent and discovery requests gave State Farm a reasonable basis to conclude its exposure was nominal. Accordingly, State Farm was entitled to an award of attorney's fees.
[1] A nominal settlement offer is not made in bad faith when the insurer has a reasonable basis to conclude that its exposure is nominal, particularly when the insured fails…
[2] An insured must comply with conditions precedent to filing a lawsuit against their insurer, including the submission of a Sworn Proof of Loss.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is well established that insureds must comply with conditions precedent to filing a lawsuit against their insurer, including submission of a Sworn Proof of Loss.”
Establishes the legal requirement for insureds to comply with policy conditions before suing and supports State Farm's reasonable basis for the nominal offer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaughlin-Alfonso submitted a supplemental home damage claim to State Farm and was asked to provide documents including a Sworn Proof of Loss, which sh…
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 Sworn Proof Of Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
State Farm Florida Insurance Company-appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion for attorney’s fees. We reverse because State Farm’s nominal settlement offer to its insured Ivonne Laughlin-Alfon-so was not made in bad faith and, as such, State Farm was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.
Laughlin-Alfonso submitted a supplemental home damage claim to State Farm through her public adjustor, after which State Farm requested several documents from Laughlin-Alfonso that included a Sworn Proof of Loss. Laughlin-Alfonso did not comply with State Farm’s requests.
Laughlin-Alfonso thereafter filed suit. She once again did not comply with any of State Farm’s requests during the course of discovery. She also denied State Farm’s nominal settlement offer.
The trial court ultimately entered summary judgment for State Farm. State Farm then moved for attorney’s fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. The trial court denied the motion and found that State Farm made the initial settlement offer in bad faith.
We conclude that State Farm did not act in bad faith when it made the nominal settlement offer to Laughlin-Al-fonso. The abuse of discretion standard of review governs this Court’s review of a trial court’s determination that a proposal for settlement was not made in good faith. See Event Servs. Am., Inc. v. Ragusa, 917 So.2d 882, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). It is well established that insureds must comply with conditions precedent to filing a lawsuit against their insurer, including submission of a Sworn Proof of Loss. See Gonzalez v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 65 So.3d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Edwards v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 64 So.3d 730, 732-33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). To determine whether State Farm’s settlement offer was justified, we consider whether “the record demonstrates conclusively that, at the time [the offer] was made, ‘[State Farm] ... had a reasonable basis ... to conclude that [its] exposure was nominal.’” Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Weinstein, 747 So.2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (quoting Fox v. McCaw Cellular Commc’ns, Inc., 745 So.2d 330, 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)).
The terms of the State Farm insurance policy required Laughlin-Alfonso to assist State Farm in its investigation of her claim to the best of her ability before she filed suit. The record reflects that Laughlin-Alfonso did not respond to any of State Farm’s requests and failed to submit a Sworn Proof of Loss. Laughlin-Alfonso also failed to respond to State Farm’s discovery requests. Additionally, she failed to submit any credible evidence to support her supplemental claim, other than the public adjuster’s report.
We thus conclude that State Farm had a reasonable basis to believe that its exposure was nominal and did not act in bad faith when it made the settlement offer to Laughlin-Alfonso. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying State Farm’s motion for attorney’s fees, and remand with instructions to enter an attorney’s fee award in State Farm’s favor.
*316Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
KEY W. Seaside, LLC v. Certified Lower Keys Plumbing, Inc., 208 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ple is particularly applicable here because the trial court’s order can only be reversed based upon a determination that the trial court abused its discretion. § 768.79(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013); see also State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Laughlin-Alfonso, 118 So. 3d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“The abuse of discretion standard of review governs this Court’s review of a trial court’s determination that a proposal for settlement was not made in good faith.”). Without a copy of the evidentiary hearing transcript, it…
-
Isaias v. The H.T. Hackney Co., 159 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…er a “nominal” offer4 is in good faith requires the trial court to consider whether the offeror had a reasonable basis to conclude, at the time of making the offer, that its exposure was [*1005] nominal. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Laughlin-Alfonso, 118 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The record in the present case is that all three appellants had an objectively reasonable basis to make a nominal offer. Hackney had conceded, not only to Isaías, but also to REW Dairy and Toni Gas, that all invoices before the…
-
Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Kagan Jugan & Assocs., P. A., 46 Fla. L. Weekly S379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…46 Fla. L. Weekly at S379. P.L., 277 So. 3d 299, 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ("A trial court's ruling that an offer of judgment was not made in good faith is reviewed for abuse of discretion." (first citing State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Laughlin- Alfonso, 118 So. 3d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); and then citing Downs v. Coastal Sys. Int'l, Inc., 972 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008))). "[S]ection 768.79 creates a mandatory right to attorney's fees if its prerequisites are met." McGregor v. Molnar, 79 So. 3d 908, 9…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ira FOX v. McCAW Cellular Commc'ns OF Fla., Inc., 745 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Weinstein, 747 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Edwards v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 64 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Event Servs. Am., Inc. v. Ragusa, 917 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Gonzalez v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 65 So. 3d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Odom v. State, 65 So. 3d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)