MADELINE BETANCOURT AND NIVIA MALGAREJO, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2014-10-10
No. 2D13-265
ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
153 So. 3d 936 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2014) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

Homeowners appealed summary judgment dismissing their breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims against the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) for an unsatisfied sinkhole loss. The court affirmed, holding that the homeowners' lawsuit was barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Florida law, as they filed suit more than one year after the deadline for filing claims in the liquidation order.


Holding

The homeowners' lawsuit was barred by the applicable one-year statutes of limitation. Section 95.11(5)(d) requires commencement of suit within one year from the deadline for filing claims (May 2, 2011), making the deadline for filing suit May 2, 2012. The homeowners' May 22, 2012 filing was untimely, and nothing in the record showed FIGA had extended the deadline.


Headnotes

[1] An action against a guaranty association and its insured must be commenced within one year from the date of the deadline for filing claims in the order of liquidation.

[2] A covered claim against a guaranty association is barred if suit is not instituted within one year after the deadline for filing claims, or any extension thereof, with th…

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“A covered claim as defined herein with respect to which settlement is not effected and suit is not instituted against the insured of an insolvent insurer or the association within 1 year after the deadline for filing claims, or any extension thereof, with the receiver of the insolvent insurer shall thenceforth be barred as a claim against the association and the insured.”

Establishes the statutory one-year limitation period for suits against FIGA under section 631.68

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The homeowners sustained a sinkhole loss on December 15, 2009. Their insurer, Magnolia Insurance Company, was ordered liquidated on April 30, 2010, wi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
SILBERMAN, Judge.

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Madeline Betancourt and Nivia Malga-rejo (the Homeowners) appeal a final summary judgment in favor of Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA). The trial court determined that the applicable statutes of limitation barred the Homeowners’ action against FIGA for breach of contract and declaratory judgment regarding a sinkhole loss. Because the action is time barred under sections 95.11(5)(d) and 631.68, Florida Statutes (2009), we affirm the final summary judgment.

The Homeowners sustained a sinkhole loss on December 15, 2009. The insurer, Magnolia Insurance Company, was ordered liquidated on April 30, 2010. The liquidation order provided that the deadline for filing claims against FIGA was May 2, 2011. The Homeowners timely filed a notice of claim with FIGA on January 13, 2011, and a proof of claim on January 31, 2011.

FIGA made a payment to the Homeowners on May 4, 2012. The Homeowners were not satisfied with the amount and filed suit against FIGA on May 22, 2012. FIGA raised the statutes of limitation as one of its affirmative defenses. The Homeowners filed a reply with a general denial to the affirmative defenses but did not assert that the parties had agreed to any extension of time.

The trial court properly determined on FIGA’s motion for summary judgment that the Homeowners’ lawsuit was barred by the one-year statutes of limitation set forth in sections >95.11(5)(d) and 631.68. Section 95.11(5)(d) requires the commencement of suit within one year for “[a]n action against any guaranty association and its insured, with the period running from the date of the deadline for filing claims in the order of liquidation.” Section 631.68 provides as follows:

A covered claim as defined herein with respect to which settlement is not effected and suit is not instituted against the insured of an insolvent insurer or the association within 1 year after the deadline for filing claims, or any extension thereof, with the receiver of the insolvent insurer shall thenceforth be barred as a claim against the association and the insured.

*938Based on these clear statutory provisions, the Homeowners were required to file suit against FIGA by May 2, 2012, within one year of the deadline for filing claims provided in the order of liquidation. See Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Garcia, 614 So.2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Webb v. Chambly, 584 So.2d 216, 216-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Montano v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 535 So.2d 658, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see also Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Jones, 802 So.2d 483, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing section 631.68 and stating that a declaratory action was “barred under the one-year limitations period for actions against either the insured or the guaranty association”).

In opposition to summary judgment, there was nothing to contradict the time frame of the May 2, 2011, deadline for filing a claim and thus the May 2, 2012, deadline to file suit. Nothing showed, or even raised an inference, that FIGA extended the deadline for filing claims, which would have altered the deadline for filing suit. See Huntington Nat’l Bank v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp., 779 So.2d 396, 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (stating that summary judgment is proper “when no genuine issue of material fact exists after all reasonable inferences have been drawn in favor of the nonmoyant”). Because the action against FIGA was untimely, we affirm the final summary judgment.

Finally, we observe that the one-year statutes of limitations contained in sections 95.11(5)(d) and 631.68 may compel claimants to file lawsuits against FIGA before FIGA has completed the processing of their claims and made satisfactory payments. Such lawsuits may later prove to be unnecessary, depending on the outcome of the claims adjustment process. A statutory change in the limitations period to extend the time for filing such lawsuits until the adjusting process has been completed by FIGA may be sensible, but that is a matter for the legislature.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …rst-party suit is not filed against the insurer before insolvency occurs, the insured is required to file its action against FIGA before the limitation periods in sections 95.11(5)(d) and 631.68 expire. See Betancourt v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc., 153 So. 3d 936, 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). However, where a first-party suit was filed [*684] before the insurer became insolvent, the statutes of limitation by their own terms do not apply. Both statutes refer to instances where suit has not been filed. They do not…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw