The Florida Insurance Law Blog

By Jeffrey T. Donner, Esq.

Call 407-639-4223 to schedule a consultation with Attorney Jeff Donner today.

  • Punitive Damages in First-Party Property Cases

    Is it possible to for an insured to be awarded punitive damages in a first-party property insurance case? Yes. What is the difference between amending to assert a claim for punitive damages and amending to assert a claim for “bad faith”? The answer might not be clear. In Cook v. Florida Peninsula Ins. Co., 371…

    Read more

  • Chevron Deference is No More; Does it Matter?

    In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 104 S.Ct. 2778 (1984). Democrats are up in arms. Now that the Court has ended “Chevron deference”—meaning courts are free to resolve cases and controversies without any systematic…

    Read more

  • Understanding Summary Judgment in the Context of Complex Federal Environmental Law

    A recent—but Chevron-era—federal case in the Southern District of Florida gave us a detailed look at the complexities of dealing with cross-motions for summary judgment in complex environmental contamination and permitting litigation. In Conservancy of Sw. Florida, Inc. v. Williams, 13-14477-CIV, 2018 WL 11422990 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2018), three non-profit environmental protection organizations sued…

    Read more

  • Water Mitigation and Mold Remediation Companies Not Performing Real Construction Work Do Not Need a Building Contractor License

    Do water mitigation and mold remediation companies need a building contractor license? No. In Incident365 Florida, LLC v. Ocean Pointe V Condo. Assoc., ___ So. 3d. ___ (Nos. 3D22-2239, 3D22-2240 & 3D22-2241) (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 2, 2024), the plaintiff, Incident365 Florida, LLC (“Incident”), appealed from separate final summary judgments entered in favor of Ocean…

    Read more

  • Understanding the Plausibility Standard in Federal Court

    The “new” federal standard for a motion to dismiss—making it more likely such a motion will be granted—is not very new anymore. The “plausibility” standard has been in place since 2007. How is the plausibility standard being implemented by federal trial courts? An interesting attempted class action against the sugar farming industry in South Florida…

    Read more

  • Understanding Superfund/CERCLA: Its History, Purpose, Recent Case Law, and Practical Realities for Companies

    The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, is a critical piece of environmental legislation in the United States. Enacted in 1980, CERCLA was designed to address the nation’s growing concern over hazardous waste sites that posed significant risks to public health and the environment. Over the years, it has…

    Read more

  • The History and Philosophy of Fee-Shifting Statutes in Florida: Ensuring Access to Justice for Individuals

    Florida has recognized the need for fee-shifting to keep insurance companies honest since 1893. For several years, however, the Governor and Florida legislature have been attacking the ability of insureds to successfully challenge their insurance companies when their claims are wrongfully denied or underpaid. Most recently, the legislature deleted the “fee shifting” statute that provided…

    Read more

  • Florida Courts and the Summary Judgment Debate

    What’s happening in Florida’s courts now that Florida adopted the federal summary judgment standard? I have argued previously that, despite the big commotion it caused, Florida’s change to using the federal standard did not really change much. What’s happening with courts in the real world? In Grand Harbor Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. GH Vero Beach…

    Read more

  • WAITE v. MILO-WAITE (4th DCA 2023): WHEN “DISCRETION” ENDS AND THE PAPERWORK STARTS TO CONTROL

    For decades, Florida divorce litigation has been framed by a single, powerful idea: trial judges have broad discretion to craft a fair overall result, and appellate courts usually will not disturb that result unless it is unreasonable. That principle traces directly to Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). But discretion is not…

    Read more

  • Insurance Contracts Are Quintessential Adhesion Contracts — So Can an Insured Win by Arguing “Illusory Promise” or “Lack of Consideration?”

    Florida law has long recognized that insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion. They are drafted by the powerful insurance company and presented to consumers—who lack equal bargaining power—as “take it or leave it.” There is no real choice in the market, because almost all insurance policies are essentially the same, especially on key exclusions such…

    Read more