Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 627.426 (2025)
Claims administration.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes: through the 2025 Regular Session (some sections already show 2026 laws)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
627.426 Claims administration.—
(1) Without limitation of any right or defense of an insurer otherwise, none of the following acts by or on behalf of an insurer shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any provision of a policy or of any defense of the insurer thereunder:
(a) Acknowledgment of the receipt of notice of loss or claim under the policy.
(b) Furnishing forms for reporting a loss or claim, for giving information relative thereto, or for making proof of loss, or receiving or acknowledging receipt of any such forms or proofs completed or uncompleted.
(c) Investigating any loss or claim under any policy or engaging in negotiations looking toward a possible settlement of any such loss or claim.
(2) A liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny coverage based on a particular coverage defense unless:
(a) Within 30 days after the liability insurer knew or should have known of the coverage defense, written notice of reservation of rights to assert a coverage defense is given to the named insured by United States postal proof of mailing, registered or certified mail, or other mailing using the Intelligent Mail barcode or other similar tracking method used or approved by the United States Postal Service sent to the last known address of the insured or by hand delivery; and
(b) Within 60 days of compliance with paragraph (a) or receipt of a summons and complaint naming the insured as a defendant, whichever is later, but in no case later than 30 days before trial, the insurer:
1. Gives written notice to the named insured by United States postal proof of mailing, registered or certified mail, or other mailing using the Intelligent Mail barcode or other similar tracking method used or approved by the United States Postal Service of its refusal to defend the insured;
2. Obtains from the insured a nonwaiver agreement following full disclosure of the specific facts and policy provisions upon which the coverage defense is asserted and the duties, obligations, and liabilities of the insurer during and following the pendency of the subject litigation; or
3. Retains independent counsel which is mutually agreeable to the parties. Reasonable fees for the counsel may be agreed upon between the parties or, if no agreement is reached, shall be set by the court.
History.—s. 475, ch. 59-205; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 375(1st), 377, 809(2nd), ch. 82-243; ss. 53, 79, ch. 82-386; s. 97, ch. 83-216; s. 114, ch. 92-318; s. 13, ch. 2019-108.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 130
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Basdeo, 742 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Basdeo, 742 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “Fla. Stat. § 627.426 . In Florida, if an insurer fails to comply with this provision of FCAS, it is estopped from denying coverage based on any coverage defenses within the meaning of the statute.”
Country Manors Ass'n v. Master Antenna Sys., Inc., 534 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). “International appeals the Final Judgment on Insurance Coverage which finds that International failed to comply with section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.”
AIU Ins. Co. v. Block Marina Inv., Inc., 544 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1989). “The issue before us is whether petitioner AIU Insurance Company (AIU) is prohibited from denying coverage in connection with a loss, coverage for which is excluded under a comprehensive liability policy, due to its noncompliance with the notice requirements of section…”
Auto Owners Ins. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (M.D. Fla. 2002). “426 The third threshold issue is whether Auto Owners and Northbrook can deny coverage pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.426 which provides that a liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny coverage based on a particular coverage defense unless within “30 days after the…”
Lazzara Oil Co. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 683 F. Supp. 777 (M.D. Fla. 1988). “Plaintiffs also assert that summary judgment in their favor is appropriate against Defendants Federated, Pacific, Reliance and Constitution because those Defendants have failed to comply with the notice provisions contained in Fla.Stat. § 627.426 and, therefore, cannot deny…”
Embroidme.com, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 845 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir. 2017). “Fla. Stat. § 627.426 (2). Translating, within thirty days of becoming aware of a coverage defense, a liability insurer must give its insured written notice that it is reserving the right to deny coverage based on that defense.”
Hugh A. Carithers v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 782 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2015). “The district judge denied the motion, holding that Mid-Continent had impermissibly delayed in raising this issue and that an amendment was not permissible under Fla. Stat. § 627.426 (2)(a), which, according to the district court, requires thirty days written notice if an insurer…”
Colony Ins. Co. v. G & E Tires & Serv., Inc., 777 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). “Nor does Section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes (1997), somehow give rise to coverage for injuries or losses the policy had unambiguously excluded.”
Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 668 F. Supp. 1541 (S.D. Fla. 1987). “At the hearing it became clear that despite the various issues raised in the motions and responses thereto, there were in fact only two narrow issues before the court: the applicability of Fla.Stat.Ann. § 627.426(2) (West 1984) and its effect on the Defendants’ subsequent…”
Gen. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Barreentine, 829 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). “The court reasoned that General Security had violated section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes, when it hired an attorney to represent Barrentine in the wrongful death action without first obtaining Barrentine's permission.”
Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. King, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (N.D. Fla. 2008). “§ 280 , preclude rescission of King’s policy ab initio; (2) Mid-Continent’s claimed right to rescind the policy because Mid-Continent waived any such right to rescind; (3) Mid-Continent’s claimed coverage defenses under any Exclusion in the Policy, because any such defenses have…”
Florida Physicians Ins. Co. v. Stern, 563 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). “Appellant FPIC contends the trial court erred when it found that section 627.426, Florida Statutes (1987) barred FPIC's denial of coverage; when it found that Dr.”
627.426(1): 2 cases
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Am. Fire & Indem. Co., 511 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
US Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Amer. Fire & Indem. Co., 511 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
627.426(1)(c): 4 cases
Hershel Bryant v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., 271 So. 3d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
Mun. Ins. Trust v. Vill. of Golf, 850 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Monika Horne, 314 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
Phoenix Trinity Mfg., Inc v. Granite State Ins. Co., No. 8:20-cv-00419, 2020 WL 5569514 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2020).
627.426(2): 66 cases
Country Manors Ass'n v. Master Antenna Sys., Inc., 534 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). “International appeals the Final Judgment on Insurance Coverage which finds that International failed to comply with section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.”
AIU Ins. Co. v. Block Marina Inv., Inc., 544 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1989). “The issue before us is whether petitioner AIU Insurance Company (AIU) is prohibited from denying coverage in connection with a loss, coverage for which is excluded under a comprehensive liability policy, due to its noncompliance with the notice requirements of section…”
Gen. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Barreentine, 829 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). “The court reasoned that General Security had violated section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes, when it hired an attorney to represent Barrentine in the wrongful death action without first obtaining Barrentine's permission.”
Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 668 F. Supp. 1541 (S.D. Fla. 1987). “At the hearing it became clear that despite the various issues raised in the motions and responses thereto, there were in fact only two narrow issues before the court: the applicability of Fla.Stat.Ann. § 627.426(2) (West 1984) and its effect on the Defendants’ subsequent…”
Colony Ins. Co. v. G & E Tires & Serv., Inc., 777 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). “Nor does Section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes (1997), somehow give rise to coverage for injuries or losses the policy had unambiguously excluded.”
627.426(2)(a): 22 cases
Mun. Ins. Trust v. Vill. of Golf, 850 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Nat'l Trust Ins. v. Graham Bros. Constr. Co., 916 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2013).
Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Basdeo, 742 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “Fla. Stat. § 627.426 . In Florida, if an insurer fails to comply with this provision of FCAS, it is estopped from denying coverage based on any coverage defenses within the meaning of the statute.”
Patry v. Capps, 633 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1994).
Graham v. Lloyd's Underwriters at London, 964 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
627.426(2)(b): 12 cases
Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Basdeo, 742 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “Fla. Stat. § 627.426 . In Florida, if an insurer fails to comply with this provision of FCAS, it is estopped from denying coverage based on any coverage defenses within the meaning of the statute.”
Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Salvia, 472 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
AIU Ins. Co. v. Block Marina Inv., Inc., 544 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1989). “The issue before us is whether petitioner AIU Insurance Company (AIU) is prohibited from denying coverage in connection with a loss, coverage for which is excluded under a comprehensive liability policy, due to its noncompliance with the notice requirements of section…”
Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 668 F. Supp. 1541 (S.D. Fla. 1987). “At the hearing it became clear that despite the various issues raised in the motions and responses thereto, there were in fact only two narrow issues before the court: the applicability of Fla.Stat.Ann. § 627.426(2) (West 1984) and its effect on the Defendants’ subsequent…”
Dr. Scott J. Swerdlin v. Florida Mun. Ins. Trust, 162 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
627.426(2)(b)(1): 1 case
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Goldman, 548 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
627.426(2)(b)(2): 1 case
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Brockman, 524 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
627.426(2)(b)(3): 4 cases
Colony Ins. Co. v. G & E Tires & Serv., Inc., 777 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). “Nor does Section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes (1997), somehow give rise to coverage for injuries or losses the policy had unambiguously excluded.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Brown, 767 F. Supp. 1151 (S.D. Fla. 1991).
Allstate Ins. v. M.H., 681 F. Supp. 811 (S.D. Fla. 1988).
Cont'l Ins. Co. v. City of Miami Beach, 521 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
627.426(l)(c): 1 case
Judy Rodrigo v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 144 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
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.