A Florida appeals courtroom has upheld the dismissal of no fewer than 16 auto glass assignment-of-benefits lawsuits towards Progressive Insurance corporations, maybe placing an exclamation level on the enforceability of appraisal clauses and coverage language that bars claims litigation.
The 5th District Court of Appeals, based mostly in Daytona Beach, this week determined with no remark that the county courtroom in Orange County was justified in dismissing the lawsuits. All of the suits had been filed by well-known Orlando plaintiffs’ legal professional Earl Higgs on behalf of six car glass-replacement corporations.
In a number of circumstances, together with At Home Auto Glass vs. Progressive American Insurance Co., the glass shop sued as a result of Progressive didn’t pay the total quantity of the submitted invoice for changing a windshield. Driver Mary Cargle had assigned advantages to At Home. But Orange County Judge Amy Carter tossed the suit, noting that the auto coverage mandates that variations of opinion on the declare quantity go to a third-party appraiser, and that “the policy states that the defendant cannot be sued unless there is full compliance with all the terms of the policy.”
Higgs and the protection legal professional for Progressive, Lissette Gonzalez of the outstanding insurance coverage protection agency, Cole, Scott & Kissane, couldn’t be reached for remark. But different judicial consultants in Florida stated the rulings underscore that insurance coverage insurance policies can, actually, require that insureds adjust to coverage phrases.
“I think a party to a contract always can waive their right to sue or make it contingent on their meeting defined prerequisites,” stated Robert Jarvis, professor of regulation at Nova Southeastern University regulation faculty in Fort Lauderdale.
Such clauses make sense, he stated, as a result of they power policyholders to attempt to work issues with the service “rather than simply running off to court and filing a lawsuit.”
Michael Packer, with the Marshall Dennehey agency, stated that courts have allowed some insureds somewhat leeway, or “substantial compliance” with the coverage. But for assignees of advantages, such because the auto glass corporations, courts typically maintain them to a stricter normal.
“The courts have grown exhausted by the AOB lawsuits and are less forgiving when they fail to comply with one or more post-loss conditions,” Packer stated in an e mail.
A quantity of insurance coverage firm officers have stated that AOBs lie at coronary heart of the proliferation of litigation that has price Florida insurers thousands and thousands of {dollars} in recent times and has helped drive a number of into insolvency. Data from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation reveals that from 2017 to 2020, the severity of house owner AOB claims had been virtually double that of claims with out AOBs.
Some within the trade have stated that the Florida Legislature, attributable to convene in one other particular session subsequent month, could take additional steps to curtail AOB litigation.
At a earlier particular session in May, lawmakers banned the awarding of legal professional charges for plaintiffs in most AOB circumstances. That got here after 2019’s reform measure, which put a quantity of different restrictions on assignments of advantages and litigation.
As a lot as house owner AOB claims, auto glass claims have lengthy been a thorn within the trade’s facet, and trade advocates have blamed installers for an explosion of claims with inflated costs, and for submitting swimsuit too shortly. In current years, the insurance coverage trade backed laws that that might have prohibited restore outlets from providing something of worth to prospects in change for making insurance coverage claims for glass substitute and restore, however the measures didn’t survive.
In some of the current Progressive circumstances, the assignee auto outlets despatched the invoice, for greater than $1,000, to the insurer, which paid solely half of it. Progressive argued that the coverage requires that an appraisal course of be utilized to determine the payable quantity.
“We recognize that a dispute exists with respect to the amount that is necessary to repair or replace the windshield, and the purpose of this letter is to explain that the insurance policy provides that an appraisal is the method to be used to resolve the disagreement,” Progressive wrote to Apex Auto Glass in a single dispute. “Although you may have provided a purported assignment of benefits, this correspondence does not waive any of the defenses we may have regarding the same. Specifically, we are hereby treating the assignment of benefits as a direction to pay and have issued the payment due pursuant to the policy language. Should you file suit naming our customer as the assignor, we reserve the right to assert defenses pertaining to the purported assignment of benefits.”
Progressive’s movement to dismiss the swimsuit was based mostly partially on its rivalry that Apex didn’t take part within the appraisal course of. The glass outlets argued that, amongst different points, the insured was unable to find the coverage on the time the declare was failed, so couldn’t know of its necessities, that an appraisal was cost-prohibitive, and that appraisal was not applicable as a result of the dispute was over protection, not worth.
The county courtroom sided with Progressive on all counts.
Topics
Lawsuits
Florida
Auto
Interested in Auto?
Get automated alerts for this subject.