Cases from cite.case.law:

BRYANT v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 271 So. 3d 1013 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . (quoting § 627.426(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007) ). . . .

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, v. FELICIANO, 259 So. 3d 957 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . 62, 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (Rothenberg, C.J., specifically concurring), when she wrote: While section 627.426 . . .

ST. PAUL FIRE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. ROSEN MILLENNIUM, INC., 337 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (M.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 627.426(2). . . . The Florida Supreme Court has held that noncompliance with the notice requirements in section 627.426 . . . Stated differently, " section 627.426 does not create or extend nonexistent coverage." Doe v. . . .

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. MUKAMAL, FOR LACAYO, 230 So. 3d 62 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . result articulated in the majority opinion is mandated by the clear and unambiguous language of section 627.426 . . . its-finding that Geico did "not comply with the' expressfy listed methods of compliance with section 627.426 . . . Pursuant to section 627.426, once Geico sent its reservation of rights notice to assert a coverage defense . . . While section 627.426 is clear and unambiguous, and therefore mandates the result identified by the trial . . . It is unlikely that the Legislature intended such a result when it enacted section 627.426. . . . issue of material fact that GEICO failed to comply with the Claims Administration Statute, section 627.426 . . . The plain and unambiguous language . of section 627.426 states: (2) A liability insurer shall not be . . .

NOVA CASUALTY COMPANY, v. WILSON DEVELOPERS, LLC, a a a d b a a C O a C. Q. a n k a D. a a a, 212 So. 3d 477 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . settlement by the motion of any party, unless the insurer denied coverage under the provisions of s. 627.426 . . . (2) or defended under a reservation of rights pursuant to s. 627.426(2). . . .

EMBROIDME. COM, INC. v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,, 845 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 627.426, makes sense to me, but it runs counter to the Fourth District’s decision in Nationwide Mut . . . . § 627.426 (1983). . . . Stat. § 627.426(2). . . .

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT St. v. ATTORNEY S TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC. Co. LLP, LLC,, 194 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . . § 627.426. . . .

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. J. KASTENOLZ,, 649 F. App'x 647 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 627.426, and thereby waived its coverage defense. The Kastenholzes and Mr. . . .

HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANOVA FOOD, LLC LLC, v., 173 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (D. Haw. 2016)

. . . . § 627.426(2)(b). . . .

MARONDA HOMES, INC. OF FLORIDA, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY,, 118 F. Supp. 3d 1332 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . obligation for Progressive to provide .mutually agreeable counsel pursuant to Florida Statutes, section 627.426 . . .

ALLIED PROFESSIONALS INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. FITZPATRICK M. D. C. J., 169 So. 3d 138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . settlement by the motion of any party, unless the insurer denied coverage under the provisions of s. 627.426 . . . (2) or defended under a reservation of rights pursuant to s. 627.426(2).... § 627.4136, Fla. . . .

A. CARITHERS, S. v. MID- CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, a, 782 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 627.426(2)(a), which, according to the district court, requires thirty days written notice if an . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a) as the basis for denying the motion. . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a) was not a proper basis for denying the motion. . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a). . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a) was error. . . .

ATLANTIC MARINE FLORIDA, LLC, v. EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,, 775 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 627.426(2) (requiring insurers, after providing written notice of their reservation of rights, to . . .

T. PETRO, Jr. v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA,, 54 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (N.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 627.426(2). . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a), (b)(3). . . . Stat. 627.426, applies only to preclude particular coverage defenses and is therefore not relevant to . . .

LAKE BUENA VISTA VACATION RESORT, L. C. a v. GOTHAM INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 595 F. App'x 914 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 627.426. . . . There, the Supreme Court of Florida held as follows: Section 627.426(2), by its express terms, applies . . . Therefore, we hold that the term “coverage defense,” as used in § 627.426(2), means a defense to coverage . . .

GEMINI II LTD, v. MESA UNDERWRITERS SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO. R L, 592 F. App'x 803 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 627.426(2)(a), Mesa waived the late notice defense because its reservation of rights letter did not . . . The relevant portion of § 627.426(2)(a) reads as follows: (2) A liability insurer shall not be permitted . . . Given the contents of the reservations of rights letter, Mesa complied with the requirements of § 627.426 . . .

Dr. J. SWERDLIN, v. FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST,, 162 So. 3d 96 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . with prejudice; and (2) denying the plaintiffs motion for defense cost determination under section 627.426 . . . causes of action for breach of the insurance contract and for defense cost determination under section 627.426 . . . remand for entry of an order granting the plaintiffs motion for defense cost determination under section 627.426 . . .

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. RODRIGUEZ,, 155 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . purported April 2008 ROR constituted a violation of Florida’s Claims Administrations Statute — section 627.426 . . . The trial court determined that Geico violated section 627.426(2)(a), which requires an insurer to assert . . . As the court expressed in AIU: [W]e hold that the term "coverage defense,” as used in section 627.426 . . .

RODRIGO, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY,, 144 So. 3d 690 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . . § 627.426(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added). . . .

WESTERN HERITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. MONTANA, N., 30 F. Supp. 3d 1366 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . Western Heritage was prohibited from asserting a coverage defense because it violated Florida Statutes § 627.426 . . .

EMBROIDME. COM, INC. v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 627.426(2) (“FCAS”); and that this failure bars Defendant from relying on coverage defenses. . . . Stat. § 627.426 (“FCAS”), which states in relevant part: A liability insurer shall not be permitted to . . . Ann. § 627.426(2) (West). . . . For example, failure to provide timely notice is a “coverage defense” within the meaning of Section 627.426 . . .

BEAZLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. BANERJEE A B, 123 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . entered or a settlement is reached” occurs where “the insurer denied coverage under the provisions of s. 627.426 . . . (2) or defended under a reservation of rights pursuant to s. 627.426(2).” § 627.4136(4), Fla. . . .

ESSEX INSURANCE CO. v. INTEGRATED DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS, INC. a a a LLC, a a a, 124 So. 3d 947 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . they alleged that Essex had failed to comply with Florida’s claims administration statute, section 627.426 . . . Section 627.426 was not specifically addressed, but as will become clear, our decision in this case applies . . .

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. PRUITT, St. a k a, 122 So. 3d 484 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . misrepresentation as a defense because it was untimely under the Florida Claims Administration Statute, section 627.426 . . .

MAX SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. A CLEAR TITLE AND ESCROW EXCHANGE, LLC, G. O LLC, LLC,, 114 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . Section 627.426(2) of the Florida Claims Administrative Statute does not apply to a defense of no coverage . . . Section 627.426(2) does not create coverage “where a particular claim is expressly excluded from coverage . . . Max Specialty relies solely on the criminal acts exclusion to the policy to deny coverage, section 627.426 . . .

DANNY S BACKHOE SERVICE, LLC, v. AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY A, 116 So. 3d 508 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . conclude the plain and unambiguous policy language excludes the leased equipment, and that section 627.426 . . . Turning to whether Auto Owners waived its right to deny coverage, section 627.426, Florida Statutes, . . . registered or certified mail sent to the last known address of the insured or by hand delivery[.] § 627.426 . . . “[T]he term ‘coverage defense,’ as used in section 627.426(2), means a defense to coverage that otherwise . . .

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. M. HARVEY,, 109 So. 3d 236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . settlement by the motion of any party, unless the insurer denied coverage under the provisions of s. 627.426 . . . (2) or defended under a reservation of rights pursuant to s. 627.426(2). . . .

NATIONAL TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, v. GRAHAM BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. LLP,, 916 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . defense due to National Trust alleged noncompliance with Florida’s Claims Administration Statute, Section 627.426 . . . Section 627.426(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides: A liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny . . . Section 627.426(2)(a), Florida Statutes. . . . Section 627.401(2) removes the Policy from the requirements of the Claims Administration Statute, Section 627.426 . . .

NEW HAMPSHIRE INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. D. SCOTT, C., 910 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (M.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . On October 7, 2009, NHIC sent Scott’s father a “reservation-of-rights letter” under Section 627.426, . . .

LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. M. MILNE P., 98 So. 3d 613 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . settlement by the motion of any party, unless the insurer denied coverage under the provisions of s. 627.426 . . . (2) or defended under a reservation of rights pursuant to s. 627.426(2). . . .

MID- CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, a v. BASDEO,, 477 F. App'x 702 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 627.426, from denying coverage on this basis. . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a). . . . Id. § 627.426(2)(b). . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(b). IV. . . . Stat. § 627.426(2). . . .

GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. ELLIOTT,, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (M.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 627.426(2). . . .

BODYWELL NUTRITION, LLC, a v. FORTRESS SYSTEMS, LLC, a d b a FSI, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . the settlement by motion of any party, unless the insurer denied coverage under the provisions of § 627.426 . . . (2) or defended under a reservation of rights pursuant to § 627.426(2). . . .

STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. ROBERT,, 71 So. 3d 238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . settlement by the motion of any party, unless the insurer denied coverage under the provisions of s. 627.426 . . . (2) or defended under a reservation of rights pursuant to s. 627.426(2). . . .

U. S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. G. BURD LLP,, 833 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . . § 627.426(2); see also 14 G. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law § 202:4 (3d ed. 2005). . . .

MID- CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, a v. BASDEO,, 742 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . Further, Defendants argue that the FCAS, Section 627.426, Fla. . . . As for the case law Mid-Continent does cite, it pertains to Section 627.426, Fla. . . . Because Mid-Continent ultimately complied with Section 627.426 in this case by denying coverage, the . . . citation to the mutually agreeable attorney aspect of Section 627.426 has no relevance here. . . . Stat. § 627.426. . . .

FALCON TRUST GROUP, INC a v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . . § 627.426. . . .

LLOYDS UNDERWRITERS AT LONDON, v. KEYSTONE EQUIPMENT FINANCE CORP. d b a, 25 So. 3d 89 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Two weeks before trial, AIU refused to provide further defense and, in so doing, violated section 627.426 . . .

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SEA QUEST INTERNATIONAL, INC., 676 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 627.426(2). . . .

OHIO NATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, v. LANGKAU, ESTATE OF L. LANGKAU, T., 353 F. App'x 244 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . Section 627.426(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes precludes a liability insurer from denying coverage based . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a) are inapplicable to the instant case. E. . . .

KEENAN HOPKINS SCHMIDT AND STOWELL CONTRACTORS, INC. a v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 627.426. See Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Salvia, 472 So.2d 486, 488 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct. . . .

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SALGADO,, 22 So. 3d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . because it had failed to comply with the requirements of the Claims Administrative Statute, section 627.426 . . .

ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, v. ZOTA,, 607 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . a comprehensive liability policy, due to its noncompliance with the notice requirements of section 627.426 . . . prohibiting AIU from denying coverage because AIU had failed to notify the insured as required by § 627.426 . . . based on an express coverage exclusion has the effect of rewriting an insurance policy when section 627.426 . . . Therefore, we hold that the term ‘coverage defense’ as used in section 627.426(2), means a defense to . . . Defendants also contend that the Block Marina decision is limited to § 627.426 and cite Doe v. . . .

SHARP GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. v. MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 604 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 627.426, does not apply to surplus line insurers, like Mt. Hawley. . . . Stat. 627.426(2). In AIU Ins. Co. v. . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a). Mt. . . . As such, section 627.426(2)(a) of the CAS would not apply to Mt. . . . [therefore, § 627.426(2) is inapplicable to this case.” . . .

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. YACHTSMAN S INN CONDO ASSOCIATION, INC., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 627.426(2) (2008), provides that "[a] liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny coverage based . . .

MID- CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, v. L. B. KING, d b a, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (N.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . Stat. § 627.426(2) Under Fla. . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a). . . . Stat. § 627.426(2). . . . Stat. 627.426. . . . Stat. § 627.426’s notice requirement. D. . . .

GRAHAM, v. LLOYD S UNDERWRITERS AT LONDON,, 964 So. 2d 269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 627.426(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that a liability insurer may not deny coverage . . .

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. FRANKEL ENTERPRISES, INC. a C. B., 509 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . Even assuming Defendants’ facts to be true, I conclude, as a matter of law, that Section 627.426 does . . . was not issued for delivery or delivered in Florida, Part II of Chapter 626, which includes Section 627.426 . . . The obligations imposed under Section 627.426 apply strictly to a denial of coverage based on a “coverage . . . and “no action” provisions of the policy, and these arguments are “coverage defenses” under Section 627.426 . . . 2004 breaches (the coverage defense) to argue that Zurich had an obligation to comply with Section 627.426 . . .

ROGER KENNEDY CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 506 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . coverage defenses at a later date provided that it complies with the requirements of Florida Statute § 627.426 . . .

A. CHATZ, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA,, 372 B.R. 368 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . . § 627.426(2)(a). . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a). . . . The Court in AIU held that “the term ‘coverage defense,’ as used in section 627.426(c), means a defense . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a). . . . We note that Federal also incorrectly states that the bankruptcy court “correctly concluded that § 627.426 . . .

HAZEN, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 952 So. 2d 531 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . settlement by the motion of any party, unless the insurer denied coverage under the provisions of s. 627.426 . . . (2) or defended under a reservation of rights pursuant to s. 627.426(2). . . .

In NANOVATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Co., 347 B.R. 314 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2006)

. . . . § 627.426(2)(a) does not have a counterpart in the Illinois statutes, and that a conflict therefore . . . However, § 627.426(2)(a) does not create coverage where none would otherwise exist. . . . International cannot assert this “coverage defense” because the insurer failed to comply with section 627.426 . . . Although we affirm the trial court’s ruling that International failed to comply with section 627.426( . . . Stat. § 627.426(2)(a) does not apply even if Florida law is applicable here. . . .

ROYAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, v. COACHMAN INDUSTRIES, INC., 184 F. App'x 894 (11th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 627.426(2) (2005). . . . Stat. 627.426(2)(a) (2005). . Interestingly, St. . . .

BASIK EXPORTS IMPORTS, INC. v. PREFERRED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 911 So. 2d 291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See § 627.426(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). . . . appropriately provided the insured with a defense under a reservation of rights, pursuant to section 627.426 . . .

GRG TRANSPORT, INC. v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S, LONDON,, 896 So. 2d 922 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . defense by registered or certified mail, as required by the Claims Administration Statute, section 627.426 . . . coverage on that basis because it did not strictly comply with the Claims Administration Statute, section 627.426 . . .

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, v. ROYAL OAK ENTERPRISES, INC. a V. Sr. V. Jr., 344 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . The Beville court also found support in the Claims Administration Statute, § 627.426(2), Florida Statutes . . . Section 627.426(2) provides, in relevant part, that an insurer "shall not be permitted to deny coverage . . .

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, v. ROYAL OAK ENTERPRISES, INC. a V. Sr. V. Jr., 429 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . Royal Oak asserts that § 627.426(2), Florida Statutes, creates a duty on the part of an Insurer to obtain . . . Section 627.426(2) reads in pertinent part: A liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny coverage . . . Accordingly, § 627.426(2) cannot serve as a basis for imposing a duty on Travelers to obtain mutually . . .

FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST, v. VILLAGE OF GOLF, a, 850 So. 2d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . We do agree with the insurer, however, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on section 627.426 . . . Hinestrosa, 614 So.2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(section 627.426(2)(a) does not apply where there is no . . . See § 627.426(l)(c) (“none of the following acts by or on behalf of an insurer shall be deemed to constitute . . . should prefer "false sense of security” as against clear contractual language to the contrary. . § 627.426 . . . The incident occurred in 1995. . § 627.426(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . .

GENERAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BARRENTINE d b a B B F. L., 829 So. 2d 980 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . The court reasoned that General Security had violated section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes, when it hired . . . court held that General Security could not deny coverage, because it had not complied with section 627.426 . . . Barrentine did not assert a claim of estoppel under section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes. . . . The conditions imposed by section 627.426(2) apply only to the immediate parties to an insurance contract . . .

AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY SURETY COMPANY, v. v., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (M.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . Florida Statute 627.426 The third threshold issue is whether Auto Owners and Northbrook can deny coverage . . . Stat. § 627.426 which provides that a liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny coverage based . . . Stat. § 627.426 does not apply to provide coverage where coverage otherwise does not exist simply because . . . Stat. § 627.426. . . . Stat. § 627.426, this court turns to whether there is coverage under the CGL policies for Reliance’s . . .

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. J. BEVILLE, Jr. II,, 825 So. 2d 999 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 627.426(2) bars the carrier from asserting a coverage defense unless the carrier has complied . . . fully with the CAS. § 627.426(2), Fla. . . . See § 627.426(2), Fla. . . .

HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., 824 So. 2d 234 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 627.426(2) provides: (2) A liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny coverage based on . . . Although there is no dispute that Hartford did not comply with section 627.426, Hartford’s assertion . . . the antistacking clause does not constitute a coverage defense requiring it to comply with section 627.426 . . . , 999-1000 (Fla.1989): We do not believe that the legislature intended, by the enactment of section 627.426 . . . [T]he term “coverage defense,” as used in section 627.426(2), means a defense to coverage that otherwise . . .

C. A. SEGUROS CATATUMBO, v. HERRERA, 812 So. 2d 576 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . settlement by the motion of any party, unless the insurer denied coverage under the provisions of s. 627.426 . . . (2) or defended under a reservation of rights pursuant to s. 627.426(2). . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. JONES,, 789 So. 2d 504 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . So.2d 998 (Fla.1989): We do not believe that the legislature intended, by the enactment of section 627.426 . . .

SCHULTZ, v. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 778 So. 2d 402 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Schultzes first argue that Arni-ca is precluded from raising the statute of limitations defense by section 627.426 . . . There is no dispute that Arnica failed to comply with section 627.426. . . . It makes no sense to read section 627.426(2)(a) to apply to such an affirmative defense, since an insured . . . Having decided this case based on our construction of the term “coverage defense” in section 627.426( . . .

COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. G E TIRES SERVICE, INCORPORATED,, 777 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Nor does Section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes (1997), somehow give rise to coverage for injuries or losses . . . See § 627.426(2)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Steadfast Ins. Co. v. . . . There has been no contention that Colony failed to comply with the requirements of section 627.426(2) . . . Section 627.426(2) provides in pertinent part: A liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny coverage . . . "coverage defense" to mean "a defense to coverage that otherwise exists" and holding that "section 627.426 . . .

PIONEER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. HEIDENFELDT,, 773 So. 2d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . The insurer’s actions were in violation of section 627.426(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), which required . . . The supreme court held that the insurer’s failure to comply with the time requirements of section 627.426 . . .

ESSEX HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION, v. J. FRITZ L. N. A., 740 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . 4th DCA 1999) (refusing to consider, for the first time on appeal, lack of compliance with section 627.426 . . .

DeMEO, v. FRENCHY S WORLDWIDE HELMETS, INC. s, 732 So. 2d 12 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . settlement by the motion of any party, unless the insurer denied coverage under the provisions of s. 627.426 . . . (2) or defended under a reservation of rights pursuant to s. 627.426(2). . . . excludes joinder of an insurer as a party defendant when the insurer denied coverage pursuant to section 627.426 . . . DeMeo did not raise the issue of lack of compliance with section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes, before . . .

STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SHERIDAN CHILDREN S HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., 34 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (S.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . See § 627.426, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

ALMENDRAL, As v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 704 So. 2d 728 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . days of its notification of their loses as prescribed by the Claims Administration Statute, Section 627.426 . . . It has been established that “[s]ection 627.426(2), by its express terms, applies only to a denial of . . . defense of no coverage thusly: Therefore, we hold that the term “coverage defense,” as used in section 627.426 . . . excluded by the terms of the policy, the insurer’s failure to adhere to the requirements of section 627.426 . . .

AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, v. GOLD COAST ELEVATOR, INC. a a, 701 So. 2d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . that when the insurer retained counsel to defend it in the personal injury case, it violated section 627.426 . . .

WIMBERG, Jr. v. CHANDLER, In W. CHANDLER C. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. v. CHANDLER Jr., 986 F. Supp. 1447 (M.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . Defendants argue that Progressive has failed to comply with Florida Statute § 627.426(2) which regulates . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. STERNBERG,, 699 So. 2d 345 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . We hold that section 627.426, Florida Statutes, does not apply to cases in which an insured is making . . . By its terms the statute applies to cases involving liability insurance: 627.426. . . .

COREGIS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. F. McCOLLUM, F. P. A., 961 F. Supp. 1572 (M.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . Requirements for Denial of Coverage Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to comply with Section 627.426 . . . Defendants additionally assert that Plaintiff has also violated Subsection (b) of Florida Statute section 627.426 . . . Therefore, this Court cannot find that Plaintiff’s actions have violated Florida Statute Section 627.426 . . .

PARADISE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. THE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF NEW YORK,, 685 So. 2d 937 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . See § 627.426(2),(b),2, Fla. . . .

AETNA COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. AMERICAN SIGN CO., 687 So. 2d 834 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . exclusion because it did not notify the appellees it intended to assert that defense as required by section 627.426 . . .

ILLINOIS INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE CO. s,, 679 So. 2d 355 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Scottsdale defended Tiffany’s under a reservation of rights pursuant to Section 627.426, Florida Statutes . . .

ATLANTIC CASUALTY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. NATIONAL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,, 915 F. Supp. 1218 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . It cites to § 627.426(2), Fla.Stat. (1994) (Florida’s “Claims Administration Statute”). . . . Section 627.426(2) creates notice requirements as between the company and its named insured. . . . This court addressed the applicability of § 627.426(2) in Lazzara Oil Co. v. Columbia Cas. . . . , this court cited to a Florida case which held that, “[t]he legislature did not intend, by section 627.426 . . . otherwise exist or that coverage which does not otherwise exist, can be created by a violation of § 627.426 . . .

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. KEEN, 658 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . . § 627.426(2), Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. C. M. D. v. E. KINSEY, Jr., 655 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . settlement by the motion of any party, unless the insurer denied coverage under the provisions of s. 627.426 . . . (2) or defended under a reservation of rights pursuant to s. 627.426(2). . . .

DOE, DOE, a v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 653 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1995)

. . . AIU only addresses whether noncompliance with the notice requirements of section 627.426(2), Florida . . . We concluded that an insurer’s failure to comply with the requirements of section 627.426 will not preclude . . . AIU simply recognizes that section 627.426 does not create or extend nonexistent coverage. . . .

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. DEER RUN PROPERTY OWNER S ASSOCIATION, INC. a, 642 So. 2d 786 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . of its failure to comply with the notice requirements of the claims administration statute, section 627.426 . . .

NATIONAL FIRE INS. v. A. BARTOLAZO, M. D., 27 F.3d 518 (11th Cir. 1994)

. . . National sent to Barto-lazo a reservation of rights letter required under Section 627.426(2), Florida . . .

BRITAMCO UNDERWRITERS, INC. v. CENTRAL JERSEY INVESTMENTS, INC. a d b a s,, 632 So. 2d 138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . defenses, while affording its insured a defense, pursuant to the Claims Administration Statute, section 627.426 . . .

R. PATRY J. M. a v. L. CAPPS, M. D. L. M. D. P. A., 618 So. 2d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . authored an opinion which held that timely, actual written notice of a coverage defense under section 627.426 . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. HINESTROSA, 614 So. 2d 633 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . alleged estoppel and waiver as defenses, arguing that State Farm had failed to comply with sections 627.426 . . . for coverage is that State Farm failed to comply with the “Claims Administration Statute,” section 627.426 . . . a comprehensive liability policy, due to its noncompliance with the notice requirements of section 627.426 . . . The court held: We do not believe that the legislature intended, by the enactment of section 627.426( . . .

SOURAN, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, SOURAN, R. J. M. P. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY,, 982 F.2d 1497 (11th Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 627.426. . . .

INDEPENDENT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. S. ARVIDSON C., 604 So. 2d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . As to applicability of the provisions of the Claims Administration Statute, section 627.426, Florida . . .

UNION GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. LORENZO,, 598 So. 2d 161 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Union General, arguing that by denying PIP coverage, Union General had failed to comply with section 627.426 . . . Stat. 627.426, and is thus precluded from denying coverage to the plaintiff under the policy at issue . . . On appeal, Union General asserts that because section 627.426, Florida Statutes (1991), only applies . . . Section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes (1991), states: (2) A liability insurer shall not be permitted to . . . Therefore, Union General’s alleged non-compliance with section 627.426(2) has no bearing on the first . . .

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. PAPASODERO,, 587 So. 2d 500 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . not deny her coverage based upon its noncompliance with the Claims Administration Statute, section 627.426 . . . to provide mutually agreeable independent counsel under the Claims Administration Statute, section 627.426 . . . SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur. .Section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: (2) A liability . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. B. BROWN,, 767 F. Supp. 1151 (S.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . . § 627.426; and (3) collateral estoppel. . . . Violation of Fla.Stat. § 627.426 Section 627.426 of the Florida statutes states that an insurer may not . . . Fla.Stat. § 627.426(2)(b)(3). . . . The petitioner, on the other hand, states that § 627.426(2) does not even apply to this situation. . . .

NORTH AMERICAN BIOLOGICALS INC. v. ILLINOIS EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU,, 931 F.2d 839 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 627.426(2) (1982), and that, accordingly, Wausau had the right to assert, as a substantive defense . . . dated May 23, 1988 from Wausau to appellants, of the refusal of the District Court to apply Fla.Stat. § 627.426 . . . In so doing, we find it unnecessary to determine whether, pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 627.426(2), Wausau . . .

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC. v. L. MING,, 579 So. 2d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . However, it is interesting to note that section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes (1985) provides that a liability . . .

FLORIDA PHYSICIANS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. L. STERN, M. D. PHYSICIANS PROTECTIVE TRUST FUND, v. FLORIDA PHYSICIANS INSURANCE COMPANY L. M. D., 563 So. 2d 156 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . STERN, M.D. by its failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sec. 627.426(2) Fla.Stat. because . . . Section 627.426(2) provides, in pertinent part: A liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny coverage . . . FPIC’s letter, sent over a month later, failed to meet the requirements of section 627.426. . . . knowledge of a coverage defense and when the court determined PPTF had failed to comply with section 627.426 . . . The Court further finds that PPTF failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sec. 627.426 Fla.Stat . . .

CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. HENDERSON,, 559 So. 2d 662 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . that the insurer had waived the coverage defense pursuant to the Claims Administration Act, section 627.426 . . .

AIRMANSHIP, INC. v. UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., 559 So. 2d 89 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . USAU was not required to furnish notice of its denial of liability as specified in section 627.426(2) . . .

FANS AND STOVES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY,, 549 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . damages resulting from the insurer’s failure to comply with the claims administration statute, Section 627.426 . . . coverage, ap-pellee did not send its notice by registered or certified mail as required by Section 627.426 . . . Section 627.426, Florida Statutes (1987), makes no reference to attorney fees, the only express penalty . . . We do not believe that it was the legislature’s intent that section 627.426(2) change this long-standing . . . Therefore, we hold that the term “coverage defense,” as used in section 627.426(2), means a defense to . . .

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, v. S. GOLDMAN, J., 548 So. 2d 790 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . The trial court’s order further determined that section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982) precluded . . . coverage under the policy because it failed to comply with the Claims Administration Statute, section 627.426 . . . insured, by certified or registered mail, written notice of its right to assert a coverage defense. § 627.426 . . . So.2d 998 (Fla.1989): We do not believe that the legislature intended, by the enactment of section 627.426 . . . Therefore, we hold that the term “coverage defense,” as used in section 627.426(2), means a defense to . . .