Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 624.155 (2025)

Civil remedy.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

624.155 Civil remedy.—

(1) Any person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged:

(a) By a violation of any of the following provisions by the insurer:

1. Section 626.9541(1)(i), (o), or (x);

2. Section 626.9551;

3. Section 626.9705;

4. Section 626.9706;

5. Section 626.9707; or

6. Section 627.7283.

(b) By the commission of any of the following acts by the insurer:

1. Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests;

2. Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made; or

3. Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the above to the contrary, a person pursuing a remedy under this section need not prove that such act was committed or performed with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice.

(2) Any party may bring a civil action against an unauthorized insurer if such party is damaged by a violation of s. 624.401 by the unauthorized insurer.

(3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violation. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422.

(b) The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require:

1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.

3. The name of any individual involved in the violation.

4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request.

5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section.

(c) No action shall lie if, within 60 days after the insurer receives notice from the department in accordance with this subsection, the damages are paid or the circumstances giving rise to the violation are corrected.

(d) The authorized insurer that is the recipient of a notice filed pursuant to this section shall report to the department on the disposition of the alleged violation.

(e) The applicable statute of limitations for an action under this section shall be tolled for a period of:

1. Sixty days after the insurer receives from the department the notice required by this subsection.

2. Sixty days after the date appraisal is invoked pursuant to paragraph (f).

(f) A notice required under this subsection may not be filed within 60 days after appraisal is invoked by any party in a residential property insurance claim.

(4)(a) An action for bad faith involving a liability insurance claim, including any such action brought under the common law, shall not lie if the insurer tenders the lesser of the policy limits or the amount demanded by the claimant within 90 days after receiving actual notice of a claim which is accompanied by sufficient evidence to support the amount of the claim.

(b) If an insurer does not tender the lesser of the policy limits or the amount demanded by the claimant within the 90-day period provided in paragraph (a), the existence of the 90-day period and that no bad faith action could lie had the insurer tendered the lesser of policy limits or the amount demanded by the claimant pursuant to paragraph (a) is inadmissible in any action seeking to establish bad faith on the part of the insurer.

(c) If the insurer fails to tender pursuant to paragraph (a) within the 90-day period, any applicable statute of limitations is extended for an additional 90 days.

(5) In any bad faith action, whether such action is brought under this section or is based on the common-law remedy for bad faith:

(a) Mere negligence alone is insufficient to constitute bad faith.

(b)1. The insured, claimant, and representative of the insured or claimant have a duty to act in good faith in furnishing information regarding the claim, in making demands of the insurer, in setting deadlines, and in attempting to settle the claim. This duty does not create a separate cause of action, but may only be considered pursuant to subparagraph 2.

2. In any action for bad faith against an insurer, the trier of fact may consider whether the insured, claimant, or representative of the insured or claimant did not act in good faith pursuant to this paragraph, in which case the trier of fact may reasonably reduce the amount of damages awarded against the insurer.

(6) If two or more third-party claimants have competing claims arising out of a single occurrence, which in total may exceed the available policy limits of one or more of the insured parties who may be liable to the third-party claimants, an insurer is not liable beyond the available policy limits for failure to pay all or any portion of the available policy limits to one or more of the third-party claimants if, within 90 days after receiving notice of the competing claims in excess of the available policy limits, the insurer complies with either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b):

(a) The insurer files an interpleader action under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. If the claims of the competing third-party claimants are found to be in excess of the policy limits, the third-party claimants are entitled to a prorated share of the policy limits as determined by the trier of fact. An insurer’s interpleader action does not alter or amend the insurer’s obligation to defend its insured.

(b) Pursuant to binding arbitration that has been agreed to by the insurer and the third-party claimants, the insurer makes the entire amount of the policy limits available for payment to the competing third-party claimants before a qualified arbitrator agreed to by the insurer and such third-party claimants at the expense of the insurer. The third-party claimants are entitled to a prorated share of the policy limits as determined by the arbitrator, who must consider the comparative fault, if any, of each third-party claimant, and the total likely outcome at trial based upon the total of the economic and noneconomic damages submitted to the arbitrator for consideration. A third-party claimant whose claim is resolved by the arbitrator must execute and deliver a general release to the insured party whose claim is resolved by the proceeding.

(7) Upon adverse adjudication at trial or upon appeal, the authorized insurer shall be liable for damages, together with court costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff.

(8) Punitive damages may not be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are:

(a) Willful, wanton, and malicious;

(b) In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or

Any person who pursues a claim under this subsection shall post in advance the costs of discovery. Such costs shall be awarded to the authorized insurer if no punitive damages are awarded to the plaintiff.

(9) This section does not authorize a class action suit against an authorized insurer or a civil action against the commission, the office, or the department or any of their employees, or to create a cause of action when an authorized health insurer refuses to pay a claim for reimbursement on the ground that the charge for a service was unreasonably high or that the service provided was not medically necessary.

(10) In the absence of expressed language to the contrary, this section shall not be construed to authorize a civil action or create a cause of action against an authorized insurer or its employees who, in good faith, release information about an insured or an insurance policy to a law enforcement agency in furtherance of an investigation of a criminal or fraudulent act relating to a motor vehicle theft or a motor vehicle insurance claim.

(11) The civil remedy specified in this section does not preempt any other remedy or cause of action provided for pursuant to any other statute or pursuant to the common law of this state. Any person may obtain a judgment under either the common-law remedy of bad faith or this statutory remedy, but is not entitled to a judgment under both remedies. This section does not create a common-law cause of action. The damages recoverable pursuant to this section shall include those damages which are a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section by the authorized insurer and may include an award or judgment in an amount that exceeds the policy limits.

(12) A surety issuing a payment or performance bond on the construction or maintenance of a building or roadway project is not an insurer for purposes of subsection (1).

History.—ss. 9, 809(1st), ch. 82-243; s. 78, ch. 83-216; s. 2, ch. 83-288; s. 2, ch. 86-262; s. 1, ch. 87-278; s. 1, ch. 88-166; s. 30, ch. 90-119; ss. 187, 188, ch. 91-108; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 176, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2003-148; s. 757, ch. 2003-261; s. 2, ch. 2005-218; s. 6, ch. 2019-108; s. 4, ch. 2020-63; s. 4, ch. 2023-15.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 467 cases (123 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: DADELAND DEPOT. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

DADELAND DEPOT. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 122× “" § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied).”

Adrian Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 45× “§ 624.155, Fla. Stat. As a condition precedent to filing a civil action under section 624.”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1995). · cites it 50× “§ 624.155, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1982). Through this statute, the Legislature created a first-party bad faith cause of action by an insured against the insured's uninsured or underinsured motorist carrier, thus extending the duty of an insurer to act in good faith to those types of…”

Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 43× “On March 15, 1995, Talat issued statutory notification of intent to pursue a bad faith claim against Aetna pursuant to § Fla. Stat. Ann. 624.155. Sixty days after Talat's filing of the notice of its bad faith claim is May 16, 1995.”

MacOla v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 953 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 27× “Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2005) In 1982, the Legislature enacted section 624.”

QBE Ins. Corp. v. Chalfonte Condo. Apt. Ass'n, 94 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 2012). · cites it 18× “If Florida law recognizes a claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing based on an insurer’s failure to investigate and assess its insured’s claim within a reasonable period of time, is the good faith and fair dealing claim subject to the same…”

Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005). · cites it 17× “2d at 59 (citing § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1982)); see also Opperman v.”

Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F. Supp. 773 (M.D. Fla. 1996). · cites it 41× “4 On March 15, 1995, Talat issued statutory notification of intent to *778 pursue a bad faith claim against Aetna pursuant to Fla.Stat.Ann. § 624.155. 5 Sixty days after Talat’s filing of the notice of its bad faith claim is May 16, 1995.”

Joseph Cammarata & Judy Cammarata v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). · cites it 31× “The bad faith action alleged that, before the umpire was appointed, the insureds filed a notice of violation pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2011).”

Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2011). · cites it 22× “Because of the uniqueness of the attorney-client privilege, we answer the certified question in the negative and hold that attorney-client privileged communications are not discoverable in a first-party action.”

Bortell v. White Mountains Ins. Grp., Ltd., 2 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). · cites it 15× “The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, dismissing count one because Bortell lacked standing under section 624.155, and counts two and three because Bortell was a participant in the illegal conduct, thus, the in pari delicto doctrine barred his claim.”

Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n, 46 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). · cites it 26× “San Perdido's lawsuit was brought under section 624.155, Florida Statutes. In its motion to dismiss, Citizens asserted that it was entitled to sovereign immunity in that action.”

Show all 467 citing cases →

— 624.155(1) — 28 cases

DADELAND DEPOT. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006). “" § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied).”

Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., etc. v. Perdido Sun Condo. Ass'n, Inc., etc., 164 So. 3d 663 (Fla. 2015).

State v. Mark Marks, PA, 698 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1997).

Bortell v. White Mountains Ins. Grp., Ltd., 2 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, dismissing count one because Bortell lacked standing under section 624.155, and counts two and three because Bortell was a participant in the illegal conduct, thus, the in pari delicto doctrine barred his claim.”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

— 624.155(1)(B)(1) — 2 cases

Allstate Ins. v. Clohessy, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 1998).

Imhof v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 614 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

— 624.155(1)(a) — 21 cases

DADELAND DEPOT. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006). “" § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied).”

Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). “On March 15, 1995, Talat issued statutory notification of intent to pursue a bad faith claim against Aetna pursuant to § Fla. Stat. Ann. 624.155. Sixty days after Talat's filing of the notice of its bad faith claim is May 16, 1995.”

Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Conquest, 658 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1995).

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Zebrowski, 706 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1997).

Zebrowski v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 673 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

— 624.155(1)(a)(1) — 8 cases

Hogan v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

DADELAND DEPOT. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006). “" § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied).”

Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F. Supp. 773 (M.D. Fla. 1996). “4 On March 15, 1995, Talat issued statutory notification of intent to *778 pursue a bad faith claim against Aetna pursuant to Fla.Stat.Ann. § 624.155. 5 Sixty days after Talat’s filing of the notice of its bad faith claim is May 16, 1995.”

Sandalwood Estates Homeowner's Ass'n v. Empire Indem. Ins., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2009).

Patti Fortune & Jeremy Domin v. First Prot. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).

— 624.155(1)(b) — 66 cases

Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2000).

Adrian Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016). “§ 624.155, Fla. Stat. As a condition precedent to filing a civil action under section 624.”

DADELAND DEPOT. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006). “" § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied).”

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Zebrowski, 706 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1997).

— 624.155(1)(b)(1) — 28 cases

DADELAND DEPOT. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006). “" § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied).”

MacOla v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 953 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006). “Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2005) In 1982, the Legislature enacted section 624.”

Hogan v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005). “2d at 59 (citing § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1982)); see also Opperman v.”

— 624.155(1)(b)(3) — 1 case

DADELAND DEPOT. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006). “" § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied).”

— 624.155(1)(d) — 1 case

Landers v. State Farm (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

— 624.155(1)(i)(2) — 1 case

Hogan v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

— 624.155(1)(i)(3) — 1 case

Hogan v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

— 624.155(11) — 3 cases

Newman v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2024).

Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Rebecca L. Heikka (Fla. 4th DCA 2024).

— 624.155(2) — 8 cases

Clauss v. Fortune Ins. Co., 523 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

Dunn v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 631 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Florida Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Copertino, 810 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Dunn v. Nat. SEC. Fire & Cas. Co., 631 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

— 624.155(2)(a) — 19 cases

Imhof v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 643 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1994).

Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1998).

Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

— 624.155(2)(b) — 3 cases

Adrian Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016). “§ 624.155, Fla. Stat. As a condition precedent to filing a civil action under section 624.”

Imhof v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 643 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1994).

Conquest v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 637 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

— 624.155(2)(d) — 11 cases

Hollar v. Intern. Bankers Ins. Co., 572 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Imhof v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 643 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1994).

— 624.155(3) — 26 cases

Lopez v. Geico Cas. Co., 968 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2013).

Evergreen Lakes Hoa, Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters at London, Etc., 230 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. St. Godard, 936 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Rowland v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 634 F. Supp. 613 (M.D. Fla. 1986).

Galen Health Care, Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, 913 F. Supp. 1525 (M.D. Fla. 1996).

— 624.155(3)(a) — 46 cases

Adrian Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016). “§ 624.155, Fla. Stat. As a condition precedent to filing a civil action under section 624.”

Joseph Cammarata & Judy Cammarata v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “The bad faith action alleged that, before the umpire was appointed, the insureds filed a notice of violation pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2011).”

Metro. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tepper, 2 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 2009).

MacOla v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 953 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006). “Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2005) In 1982, the Legislature enacted section 624.”

Serenity Harper v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 272 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

— 624.155(3)(b) — 24 cases

Mathurin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2018).

Evergreen Lakes Hoa, Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters at London, Etc., 230 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. NAT. UNION FIRE INS., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008).

Barton v. Capitol Preferred Ins. Co., 208 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

Hunt v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 112 So. 3d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

— 624.155(3)(b)(2) — 2 cases

Porcelli v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., Inc., 635 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2008).

Carla Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

— 624.155(3)(b)(4) — 1 case

Porcelli v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., Inc., 635 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2008).

— 624.155(3)(c) — 12 cases

State Farm Ins. Co. v. Ulrich, 120 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Junior Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Junior Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Ward v. Progressive Select Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2024).

Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Plantation Open MRI, LLC A/A/O Francesse Bataille (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).

— 624.155(3)(d) — 22 cases

Adrian Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016). “§ 624.155, Fla. Stat. As a condition precedent to filing a civil action under section 624.”

MacOla v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 953 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006). “Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2005) In 1982, the Legislature enacted section 624.”

Serenity Harper v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 272 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008).

— 624.155(3)(e) — 4 cases

Serenity Harper v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 272 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Pedro Gonzalez (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).

Estes v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Dist., Davies Claims North Am., Inc. (Fla. 1st DCA 2026).

— 624.155(3)(f) — 3 cases

Serenity Harper v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 272 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Stanley Zaleski & Denise Zaleski v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Apex Roofing & Restoration, LLC a/a/o James Derrick Vs State Farm Florida Ins. Co. (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

— 624.155(4) — 23 cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1995). “§ 624.155, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1982). Through this statute, the Legislature created a first-party bad faith cause of action by an insured against the insured's uninsured or underinsured motorist carrier, thus extending the duty of an insurer to act in good faith to those types of…”

Dunn v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 631 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Dunn v. Nat. SEC. Fire & Cas. Co., 631 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Howell-Demarest v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 673 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 61 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. 1999).

— 624.155(4)(a) — 4 cases

Erik Saterbo, Stephen Saterbo & Benjamin D. Markuson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).

Erik Saterbo, Stephen Saterbo & Benjamin D. Markuson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).

Chambers v. Progressive Select Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Meralla (S.D. Fla. 2026).

— 624.155(4)(b) — 1 case

Howell-Demarest v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 673 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

— 624.155(4)(c) — 2 cases

Jones v. Cont'l Ins., 670 F. Supp. 937 (S.D. Fla. 1987).

Nat'l SEC. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dunn, 751 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

— 624.155(5) — 10 cases

Hogan v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2007).

First Coast Energy, L.L.P. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 286 F.R.D. 630 (M.D. Fla. 2012).

Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Dixon, 209 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Nowak v. Lexington Ins., 464 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

— 624.155(5)(a) — 1 case

Progressive Select Ins. Co. f/b/a Progressive Auto Pro Ins. Co. v. Janelle Ober (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).

— 624.155(5)(b) — 1 case

Chad Lord Vs Fednat Ins. Co. (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).

— 624.155(5)(c) — 2 cases

Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Lloyd's of Shelton Auto Glass, L L C, a/a/o Bruce Farlow (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).

Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Lloyd's of Shelton Auto Glass, L L C, A/A/O Bruce Farlow (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).

— 624.155(6) — 2 cases

Meralla (S.D. Fla. 2026).

SFR Servs., LLC v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2022).

— 624.155(6)(a) — 1 case

Meralla (S.D. Fla. 2026).

— 624.155(7) — 16 cases

Adrian Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016). “§ 624.155, Fla. Stat. As a condition precedent to filing a civil action under section 624.”

DADELAND DEPOT. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006). “" § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied).”

Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1998).

— 624.155(8) — 15 cases

MacOla v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 953 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006). “Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2005) In 1982, the Legislature enacted section 624.”

316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008).

Hogan v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

Saenz v. Campos, 967 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Lutz v. Prot. Life Ins. Co., 951 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

— 624.155(9) — 1 case

DADELAND DEPOT. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006). “" § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied).”

— 624.155(S)(a) — 1 case

Hunt v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 112 So. 3d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

— 624.155(b) — 3 cases

Pastor v. Union Cent. Life Ins., 184 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (S.D. Fla. 2002).

Goheagan v. Am. Veh. Ins. Co., 107 So. 3d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Perdido Sun Condo. Ass'n v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 129 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

— 624.155(b)(1) — 7 cases

Pastor v. Union Cent. Life Ins., 184 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (S.D. Fla. 2002).

Farinas v. Florida Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co., 850 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Farinas v. Florida Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 850 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Nowak v. Lexington Ins., 464 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

Adams v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York, 920 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1991).

— 624.155(b)(1)(b) — 1 case

Batchelor v. Geico Cas. Co., 142 F. Supp. 3d 1220 (M.D. Fla. 2015).

— 624.155(l)(a) — 10 cases

Perera v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 35 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 2010).

Shannon R. Ginn Constr. Co. v. Reliance Ins., 51 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 1999).

316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Fla. 2008).

Harris v. Geico Gen. Ins., 961 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (S.D. Fla. 2013).

Buell v. Direct Gen. Ins. Agency, Inc., 488 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (M.D. Fla. 2007).

— 624.155(l)(a)(6) — 1 case

Stinson v. United Auto. Ins., 734 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

— 624.155(l)(a)(l) — 5 cases

Jones v. Cont'l Ins., 670 F. Supp. 937 (S.D. Fla. 1987).

Ticor Title Ins. v. Univ. Creek, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1127 (M.D. Fla. 1991).

Jones Ex Rel. Est. of Jones v. Cont'l Ins., 716 F. Supp. 1456 (S.D. Fla. 1989).

Silhan v. Allstate Ins., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (N.D. Fla. 2002).

Lane v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., 71 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (S.D. Fla. 1999).

— 624.155(l)(b) — 34 cases

Adrian Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016). “§ 624.155, Fla. Stat. As a condition precedent to filing a civil action under section 624.”

QBE Ins. Corp. v. Chalfonte Condo. Apt. Ass'n, 94 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 2012). “If Florida law recognizes a claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing based on an insurer’s failure to investigate and assess its insured’s claim within a reasonable period of time, is the good faith and fair dealing claim subject to the same…”

Shannon R. Ginn Constr. Co. v. Reliance Ins., 51 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 1999).

United Guar. Residential Ins. v. All. Mortg. Co., 644 F. Supp. 339 (M.D. Fla. 1986).

— 624.155(l)(b)(3) — 1 case

Jones v. Cont'l Ins., 670 F. Supp. 937 (S.D. Fla. 1987).

— 624.155(l)(b)(4) — 1 case

Ticor Title Ins. v. Univ. Creek, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1127 (M.D. Fla. 1991).

— 624.155(l)(b)(l) — 24 cases

Jones v. Cont'l Ins., 670 F. Supp. 937 (S.D. Fla. 1987).

Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2011). “Because of the uniqueness of the attorney-client privilege, we answer the certified question in the negative and hold that attorney-client privileged communications are not discoverable in a first-party action.”

Galen Health Care, Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, 913 F. Supp. 1525 (M.D. Fla. 1996).

Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Garfinkel, 25 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Landmark Am. Ins. v. Studio Imports, Ltd., 76 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

— 624.155(l)(d) — 1 case

Galante v. USAA Cas. Ins., 895 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.