When a hurricane damages your property, you count on your insurance coverage firm to play honest. However what occurs when insurers undervalue claims, drag out disputes, after which cover behind new legal guidelines to keep away from accountability? That’s exactly what occurred in Cindy Vo v. Scottsdale Insurance coverage Firm—a case that delivered an important victory for policyholders in Florida.
A Basic Case of Undervaluation
In 2020, Vo, a house owner, filed a hurricane injury declare with Scottsdale Insurance coverage Firm. Scottsdale’s response? An incredibly low estimate of $420.64—an quantity so small it didn’t even exceed the wind deductible. Scottsdale paid nothing.
Vo employed a public adjuster, who estimated the injury at $38,584. Scottsdale wasn’t budging. The insurer introduced in one other adjuster, who conveniently agreed with Scottsdale’s unique, drastically low valuation.
Pissed off, Vo filed a Civil Treatment Discover (CRN), alleging dangerous religion and statutory violations. After an extended battle, an appraisal awarded her $34,545.66—proving Scottsdale had grossly underpaid. The insurer lastly paid up, and the breach of contract case was settled in 2021.
Does Florida’s New Legislation Unhealthy Religion Legislation Block Unfair Claims Follow Lawsuits?
In 2022, Florida’s legislature handed part 624.1551, creating new obstacles for policyholders to sue insurers for dangerous religion. Beneath this legislation:
- Policyholders couldn’t file a foul religion lawsuit except a court docket had dominated the insurer breached the contract.
- Appraisal awards didn’t depend as proof of breach.
- The legislation utilized to extracontractual damages claims underneath part 624.155.
This stacked the deck towards policyholders, giving insurers a robust escape path to keep away from accountability.
When Vo filed her dangerous religion lawsuit in 2023, Scottsdale used the brand new legislation as a defend, arguing she couldn’t sue as a result of her declare had settled by means of appraisal—not a court docket ruling.
The trial court docket agreed with Scottsdale and dismissed her case, ruling that her dangerous religion declare was invalid and not using a formal court docket dedication of contract breach. This view is the “get out of jail free card” rationale, which many wrongful-acting carriers use, as famous in Unhealthy Religion Insurance coverage Practices Shielded By “Get Out of Jail Free” Late Funds. Chip Merlin said the plain irony of such a rule:
Think about a world the place breaking the foundations carries no actual penalties. That’s the fact policyholders face when insurance coverage firms delay or wrongfully deny claims, solely to make a late fee after an appraisal and stroll away with none actual accountability….
…when you ultimately pay what you owe—regardless of how lengthy you drag it out—you may keep away from any actual penalties for wrongful declare practices. The result’s an uneven taking part in area the place policyholders endure by means of monetary uncertainty, property deterioration, and authorized battles whereas insurance coverage firms use delay ways as a calculated enterprise technique.
The logic behind shielding insurers from dangerous religion legal responsibility after a late fee is deeply flawed. When a policyholder information a authentic declare, they accomplish that as a result of they want the cash to restore their house, substitute their belongings, or get better from a loss instantly. A wrongful denial or extended delay doesn’t simply create inconvenience—it may possibly drive enterprise homeowners and households into monetary misery, go away buildings in disrepair, and disrupt lives. It undermines the explanation why People buy insurance coverage within the first place. The truth that an insurer can later ‘repair’ the scenario with a fee—together with curiosity—doesn’t erase the hurt attributable to the preliminary refusal to pay or roadblocks inflicting delay.
Happily, Vo didn’t quit. She appealed, arguing that the brand new legislation couldn’t apply retroactively to her case since her dangerous religion declare had vested earlier than the statute was enacted.
The First District Court docket of Attraction agreed, 1 holding that:
- New legal guidelines can not retroactively remove a sound explanation for motion.
- Part 624.1551 imposed new authorized burdens on policyholders, that means it may solely apply prospectively.
- Vo’s proper to sue for dangerous religion had already vested in 2021—earlier than the legislation existed.
What This Means for Florida Policyholders
This ruling protects policyholders and sends a powerful message. Insurers can’t rewrite historical past. If dangerous religion occurred earlier than a brand new legislation, policyholders nonetheless have the precise to sue. Appraisal isn’t a loophole for insurers. Simply because a declare settles by means of appraisal doesn’t imply insurers acted in good religion. Holding insurers accountable continues to be doable. Regardless of legislative efforts to weaken shopper protections, courts aren’t letting insurers off the hook.
Policyholders Should Battle Again
For years, insurers have pushed for legal guidelines that make it tougher for householders to problem dangerous declare dealing with. Cindy Vo’s case proves that policyholders can combat again—and win.
When you’re coping with a lowball declare provide or unfair denial:
- Doc every part – Hold information of estimates, inspections, and insurer communications.
- Search knowledgeable assist – Public adjusters and attorneys can degree the taking part in area.
- Don’t settle for the primary provide – Problem any suspiciously low injury estimates.
- Know your rights – The legislation is evolving, and courts nonetheless defend policyholders.
This Florida dangerous religion legislation resolution is a step in the precise route, guaranteeing that insurers can’t use new legal guidelines to erase previous misconduct. It is a warning to insurers that dangerous religion conduct gained’t go unchallenged.
Thought For The Day
“You can’t oppress the people who find themselves not afraid anymore.”
—Cesar Chavez
1 Vo v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 1D2023-2228 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 26, 2025).
