HERMES BARBA
v.
FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION
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.
The Florida Insurance Guaranty Association's obligation to pay covered claims is limited to the coverage and limits of the underlying insurance policy.
[1] The Florida Insurance Guaranty Association's obligation to pay covered claims is limited to coverage and limits within the underlying insurance policy and does not extend…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“covered claims which [the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association] pays must come from coverage within the policy, and not merely from a post-loss settlement agreement”
Court citing Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Waterfire Restoration, LLC, 2025 WL 3289830 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 26, 2025)
Hermes Barba appealed a circuit court decision regarding a claim against the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association. The case involved a dispute over …
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.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-1665 Lower Tribunal No. 22-CA-001660 _____________________________
HERMES BARBA, Appellant, v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Alane Laboda, Judge.
January 23, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See, e.g., Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc. v. Waterfire Restoration, LLC, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2520b, 2025 WL 3289830, at *3 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 26, 2025) (holding that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Petty v. Florida Insurance Guarantee Association, 80 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 2012), “makes it clear that covered claims which [the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association] pays must come from coverage within the policy, and not merely from a post-loss settlement agreement”); § 631.54(4), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“‘Covered claim’ means an unpaid
2
claim, including one of unearned premiums, which arises out of, and is within the coverage, and not in excess of, the applicable limits of an insurance policy to which this part applies, issued by an insurer, if such insurer becomes an insolvent insurer and the claimant or insured is a resident of this state at the time of the insured event or the property from which the claim arises is permanently located in this state.” (emphasis added)); § 631.57(1)(a)4., Fla. Stat. (“The [FIGA] may not be obligated to a policyholder or claimant in an amount in excess of the obligation of the insolvent insurer under the policy from which the claim arises.” (emphasis added)); § 631.57(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (“The [FIGA] shall . . . [b]e deemed the insurer to the extent of its obligation on the covered claims, and, to such extent, shall have all rights, duties, defenses, and obligations of the insolvent insurer as if the insurer had not become insolvent.” (emphasis added)); cf. § 631.60(2), Fla. Stat. (“The receiver, liquidator, or statutory successor of an insolvent insurer shall be bound by settlements of covered claims by the [FIGA] or a similar organization in another state.” (emphasis added)). STARGEL, MIZE and PRATT, JJ., concur.
Melissa Portes Romero and Pierre A. Louis, of Louis Law Group, PLLC, Miami, for Appellant.
Amy Klotz and Hinda Klein, of Conroy Simberg, Hollywood, for Appellee.