After a hurricane, windstorm, fire, or other significant property loss, Florida homeowners expect their insurance company to provide the coverage they paid for. Unfortunately, even a valid property insurance claim can become delayed, disputed, or substantially underpaid.
Florida law imposes claim-handling obligations on insurers when investigating, evaluating, and adjusting property insurance claims. When an insurer overlooks material evidence, conducts an inadequate investigation, misrepresents policy provisions, unreasonably delays a coverage decision, undervalues covered damage, or denies benefits without adequate support, its handling of the claim may deserve closer scrutiny.
However, not every insurance dispute constitutes bad faith.
A low estimate, delayed payment, incorrect coverage decision, or even a wrongful denial does not automatically establish a separate bad-faith claim. Insurance bad faith involves additional legal standards and procedural requirements beyond the need to prove that benefits were owed under the policy.
In many property insurance disputes, the first issue is whether the insurer breached the insurance contract by failing to pay covered benefits. Only after the underlying coverage or payment dispute is resolved may additional questions concerning the insurer’s claim-handling conduct and potential extracontractual damages become relevant.
This distinction is important for Florida policyholders. A homeowner may have a strong basis to challenge a denied or underpaid claim even when the facts do not yet support a separate bad-faith action.
Williams Law Association, P.A. represents Florida policyholders in disputed property insurance claims. We do not represent insurance companies.
What Bad Faith Means in a Florida Hurricane Claim
Bad faith involves more than a disagreement over the value of a hurricane claim. Under Florida Statute § 624.155, an insurer may face a civil action for failing to attempt in good faith to settle a claim 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 the insured’s interests.
Florida Statute § 626.9541 also identifies unfair claim-settlement practices that may be relevant to an insurance dispute. These include failing to adopt and implement proper claim-investigation standards; misrepresenting material facts or policy provisions; failing to act promptly on claim communications; denying claims without a reasonable investigation based on available information; and failing to provide a reasonable written explanation for a denial or a compromise settlement offer.
Most hurricane insurance disputes involve first-party claims, meaning the homeowner is seeking benefits under their own insurance policy. Florida law imposes additional requirements before a policyholder may pursue extracontractual damages against a property insurer for bad faith.
It is also important to distinguish between wind and flood damage after a hurricane. Standard homeowners insurance generally covers covered wind-related losses but typically excludes flooding. Flood insurance is generally provided through a separate policy, such as coverage issued through the National Flood Insurance Program or a private flood insurer.
Common Warning Signs of Bad Faith Hurricane Claim Handling
Not every dispute, denial, delay, or low settlement offer constitutes insurance bad faith. Insurance companies may investigate hurricane claims, request relevant information, evaluate coverage, and dispute losses when supported by the policy and available evidence.
Florida law also expressly provides that mere negligence alone is insufficient to establish bad faith. However, certain claim-handling practices may warrant closer scrutiny when they suggest that an insurer failed to reasonably investigate, evaluate, or resolve a covered claim.
Unreasonable or Unexplained Claim Delays
Florida law establishes specific deadlines for communications and investigations regarding residential property claims.
Under Florida Statute § 627.70131, an insurer generally must review and acknowledge a communication concerning a claim within 7 calendar days, subject to statutory exceptions. After receiving proof-of-loss statements, the insurer generally must begin any reasonably necessary investigation within 7 days. If the investigation requires a physical inspection, it generally must occur within 30 days of receipt of the proof-of-loss statements.
For claims covered by § 627.70131(7), the insurer generally must pay or deny an initial, reopened, or supplemental claim, or a portion of the claim, within 60 days after receiving notice, unless an applicable exception or tolling provision applies.
Repeated requests for information that have already been provided, unexplained inspection delays, long periods without meaningful claim activity, or inadequate communication about the status of the investigation may warrant closer review.
Denying a Hurricane Claim Without Adequate Support
Insurers may deny or limit hurricane claims based on exclusions involving wear and tear, deterioration, faulty workmanship, pre-existing damage, long-term leakage, flooding, or other causes they contend are unrelated to the covered storm loss.
The insurer should have a reasonable factual and policy basis for that decision.
A denial based on an incomplete investigation, unsupported assumptions about the property’s condition, or findings that fail to address significant available evidence may raise questions about whether the claim was reasonably investigated and fairly evaluated.
Undervaluing the Full Scope of Hurricane Damage
A lower insurance-company estimate does not automatically establish bad faith. Legitimate disagreements can arise over repair methods, pricing, causation, depreciation, and the extent of covered damage.
A substantial valuation dispute may deserve closer scrutiny, however, when the insurer’s estimate appears to omit documented damage or necessary components of a covered repair.
Examples may include overlooked roof or interior damage, inadequate repair quantities, missing code-required work where coverage applies, questionable depreciation calculations, or covered damage discovered during demolition or repairs.
The issue is not simply whether the estimate is low. It is whether the insurer reasonably investigated and evaluated the full scope of the covered loss.
Failing to Consider Relevant Evidence
Policyholders may submit photographs, contractor estimates, engineering reports, weather data, receipts, repair documentation, expert opinions, and other evidence supporting their hurricane claim.
An insurer does not have to accept every conclusion presented by the policyholder. However, disregarding material evidence, failing to investigate conflicting information, or refusing to meaningfully reconsider a decision after receiving significant new evidence may raise concerns about the claim-handling process.
Florida Statute § 626.9541 identifies unfair claim-settlement practices, including failing to adopt proper investigation standards, failing to promptly address communications regarding claims, and denying claims without reasonable investigation based on available information.
Misrepresenting Policy Provisions or the Basis for a Decision
Insurance coverage depends on both the policy language and the facts surrounding the loss. A serious concern may arise when an insurer misrepresents material facts, policy provisions, exclusions, or the basis for denying or limiting coverage.
Florida Statute § 626.9541 identifies certain misrepresentations involving insurance policies and claims as unfair insurance practices, including misrepresenting pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to coverage.
Policyholders should keep copies of written coverage decisions, estimates, reports, photographs, correspondence, and other claim documents. Written records can be especially important when the insurer’s explanation changes over time or conflicts with what was previously communicated.
Poor or Inconsistent Communication
Communication problems may also signal that a hurricane claim deserves closer review. Examples include repeated unanswered communications, contradictory explanations from different representatives, unexplained changes in the insurer’s position, or failure to clearly explain why portions of a claim were denied, limited, or excluded from payment.
Poor communication alone does not establish bad faith. It may become more significant when combined with unreasonable investigation practices, unsupported coverage decisions, unexplained delays, or failures to consider material evidence.
A Disagreement Alone Does Not Establish Bad Faith
A low estimate, a delayed response, or a disputed coverage decision does not automatically mean that an insurer acted in bad faith.
Florida Statute § 624.155 expressly provides that mere negligence alone is insufficient. The insurer’s conduct must be evaluated under the circumstances, including whether it reasonably investigated the claim, considered relevant evidence, properly applied the policy, communicated its position, and attempted in good faith to settle when it could and should have done so while acting fairly and honestly toward its insured.
Importantly, a person pursuing a remedy under § 624.155 does not have to prove that the insurer’s conduct occurred frequently enough to constitute a general business practice. That requirement should therefore not be described as an element of every statutory bad-faith claim.
Suspected Bad Faith Is Different From an Actionable Bad-Faith Lawsuit
There is an important difference between handling a questionable claim and having a legally actionable claim for extracontractual damages against a Florida property insurer.
Under Florida Statute § 624.1551, a claim for extracontractual damages under § 624.155(1)(b) does not arise until the insured establishes through an adverse court adjudication that the insurer breached the insurance contract and a final judgment or decree is entered against the insurer.
An appraisal award alone does not satisfy this requirement. Neither does acceptance of an offer of judgment under § 768.79. Florida law does allow the difference between an insurer’s appraiser’s final estimate and an appraisal award to serve as evidence of bad faith. Still, that difference is not an adverse adjudication and does not, by itself, create a bad-faith cause of action.
Florida law also requires a separate Civil Remedy Notice before a statutory bad-faith action may proceed. Under § 624.155, the Florida Department of Financial Services and the insurer generally must receive 60 days’ written notice of the alleged violation. If the insurer pays the damages or corrects the circumstances giving rise to the violation during that cure period, no action will lie based on that notice.
For residential property insurance claims, a Civil Remedy Notice also may not be filed within 60 days after any party invokes appraisal.
These requirements are why suspected improper claim handling, breach of the insurance policy, and an actionable statutory bad-faith lawsuit are separate legal concepts. A policyholder may have legitimate concerns about how a hurricane claim was handled long before the requirements for an extracontractual bad-faith action have been satisfied.
Florida’s Statutory Framework for Hurricane Insurance Bad Faith
Florida Statute § 624.155
Florida Statute § 624.155 creates a civil remedy for specified insurance-law violations and certain acts of bad faith.
One of its central provisions addresses an insurer’s failure to attempt in good faith to settle a claim 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 the insured’s interests.
In hurricane insurance claims, facts involving unreasonable delays, inadequate investigations, unsupported denials, material misrepresentations, failure to consider important evidence, or unreasonable settlement conduct may become relevant to the analysis.
Those facts do not automatically establish liability. A bad-faith claim depends on the total circumstances and compliance with Florida’s statutory prerequisites.
Florida’s Claim-Handling Requirements
Florida law imposes various obligations on residential property insurers to acknowledge communications, investigate claims, provide certain claim information, and make coverage and payment decisions within prescribed timeframes.
Section 627.70131 generally requires acknowledgment of claim communications within seven calendar days. It also establishes investigation requirements and, for covered residential property claims, generally requires payment or denial within 60 days after notice of the claim, subject to statutory exceptions and tolling provisions.
The statute further requires a written explanation, based on the insurance policy and the facts or applicable law, for any payment, denial, or partial denial.
A violation of a claim-handling deadline should not automatically be characterized as bad faith. However, the insurer’s compliance with its statutory obligations can be relevant when evaluating the overall handling of a disputed claim.
The Civil Remedy Notice Requirement
Before pursuing a statutory bad-faith action under § 624.155, a policyholder generally must file a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) through the Florida Department of Financial Services.
The notice must identify the statutory provision allegedly violated and state the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation with the specificity required by the statute. It must also contain other required information, including relevant policy language when applicable.
The insurer then receives a 60-day statutory cure period. If the insurer pays damages or corrects the circumstances giving rise to the violation within that period, the statute provides that no action will lie for the violation that was noticed. Preparing a CRN requires care because it is a statutory condition precedent to a civil action under § 624.155.
How Florida’s 2022 and 2023 Insurance Reforms Affect Policyholders
Florida’s 2022 and 2023 insurance reforms significantly changed the rules for homeowners disputing denied, delayed, or underpaid property insurance claims.
In 2022, Florida lawmakers changed several rules governing property insurance litigation and bad-faith claims. Later that year, Senate Bill 2-A eliminated the former one-way attorney-fee provisions that had allowed policyholders to recover attorney fees from insurers in many successful residential and commercial property insurance lawsuits.
In 2023, House Bill 837 made additional changes to Florida’s bad-faith laws. Among other things, the law now expressly states that mere negligence by an insurance company is not enough to establish bad faith. Florida law also imposes specific procedural requirements that policyholders must satisfy before pursuing certain extracontractual damages.
For homeowners, the practical result is important: challenging an insurance company has become more legally complex, and how a claim is documented and handled from the outset can affect the options available later.
How a Florida Hurricane Insurance Bad-Faith Claim May Proceed
Florida property insurance bad-faith claims are separate from the underlying dispute over whether insurance benefits are owed. Before a policyholder can pursue extracontractual damages against a property insurer under § 624.155(1)(b), specific statutory requirements must be satisfied.
Step 1: Resolve the Underlying Coverage Dispute
A disagreement over coverage or the amount of a hurricane claim does not automatically create a bad-faith claim.
For an extracontractual action against a property insurer, Florida Statute § 624.1551 requires the insured to establish, through an adverse adjudication by a court, that the insurer breached the insurance contract and to obtain a final judgment or decree against the insurer.
An appraisal award alone does not satisfy this requirement. Neither does acceptance of an offer of judgment under § 768.79. However, the difference between an insurer’s appraiser’s final estimate and the appraisal award may be considered evidence of bad faith.
Step 2: Satisfy the Civil Remedy Notice Requirement
Florida Statute § 624.155 generally requires the policyholder to provide the Florida Department of Financial Services and the insurer with 60 days’ written notice of the alleged violation before filing a statutory bad-faith action.
The Civil Remedy Notice must identify the statutory provisions allegedly violated and describe the facts and circumstances supporting the alleged violation with the specificity required by law.
If the insurer pays the damages or corrects the circumstances giving rise to the violation within the 60-day cure period, no action will lie for that violation.
For residential property claims, a Civil Remedy Notice also may not be filed within 60 days after any party invokes appraisal.
Step 3: Obtain the Required Adverse Adjudication
For property-insurance bad-faith claims seeking extracontractual damages under § 624.155(1)(b), additional benefits being paid is not enough by itself.
The insured must obtain an adverse court adjudication establishing that the insurer breached the policy, as well as a final judgment or decree against the insurer.
This is an important distinction under current Florida law. An appraisal award, settlement, or additional payment does not automatically satisfy the statutory prerequisite for a property-insurance bad-faith action.
Step 4: Prove Bad Faith
Even after a breach of contract has been established, bad faith does not automatically follow. The separate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the insurer failed to attempt in good faith to settle the claim when it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for the insured’s interests.
Relevant evidence may include the claim file, inspection history, adjuster communications, engineering reports, estimates, coverage decisions, correspondence, requests for information, payment history, and the insurer’s response to evidence submitted by the policyholder.
Florida law also expressly provides that mere negligence alone is insufficient to establish bad faith. The analysis focuses on the insurer’s conduct under the totality of the circumstances, not simply on whether the insurer ultimately lost the underlying coverage dispute.
What Compensation May Be Available in a Florida Bad-Faith Claim?
A bad-faith claim is separate from the underlying insurance dispute. The underlying claim focuses on the benefits owed under the policy. At the same time, a successful bad-faith action may allow a policyholder to recover additional damages caused by the insurer’s wrongful claim handling.
Under Florida Statute § 624.155, recoverable damages may include losses that were a reasonably foreseeable result of the insurer’s statutory violation. In appropriate cases, those damages may exceed the limits of the insurance policy.
The amount and type of compensation available depend on the harm actually caused by the insurer’s conduct. Any additional losses must be supported by evidence and tied directly to the actionable bad-faith conduct.
Florida law may also allow recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney fees following an adverse adjudication at trial or on appeal in the bad-faith action.
Punitive damages are available only in more serious cases and are subject to a substantially higher standard. The conduct must occur with sufficient frequency to constitute a general business practice and must be willful, wanton, and malicious or demonstrate reckless disregard for the rights of insureds.
Because bad-faith damages depend on the insurer’s conduct, causation, and the resulting financial harm, these claims require careful legal and factual evaluation.
Why Experienced Legal Representation Matters
Florida insurance bad-faith claims require careful legal analysis because a delayed, denied, or underpaid claim does not automatically amount to bad faith.
An experienced Florida property insurance attorney can evaluate both the insurer’s coverage decision and the way the claim was handled from the beginning. That review may include the policy, inspection records, estimates, engineering reports, adjuster communications, payment history, coverage explanations, and other evidence in the claim file.
The key is determining whether the dispute involves a legitimate disagreement over coverage or value, a breach of the insurance contract, or conduct that may support additional remedies under Florida law.
At Williams Law Association, P.A., we represent policyholders, not insurance companies. If your hurricane claim has been delayed, denied, or significantly underpaid, our attorneys can review the insurer’s handling of the loss, identify potential legal issues, and explain the options available for pursuing the benefits and remedies you may be entitled to under Florida law.
Why Florida Homeowners Trust Williams Law Association, P.A.
For more than 30 years, Williams Law Association, P.A. has represented Florida policyholders in disputed property insurance claims. Our firm has recovered more than $300 million for policyholders throughout Florida.
Insurance companies have adjusters, engineers, consultants, accountants, and attorneys working to protect their financial interests. Policyholders should have experienced legal counsel protecting theirs.
Our attorneys investigate disputed property losses, analyze policy language and coverage, review insurer estimates and expert reports, identify missing or undervalued damage, and work with qualified independent experts when necessary. When an insurer’s position is inconsistent with the policy, the evidence, or Florida law, we challenge it.
We represent homeowners facing hurricane claim disputes, causation issues, delayed investigations, underpayments, and coverage denials involving allegations of wear and tear, deferred maintenance, flooding, pre-existing damage, or other policy exclusions.
Williams Law Association, P.A. represents policyholders. We do not represent insurance companies.
If your hurricane or property insurance claim has been delayed, denied, or underpaid, contact Williams Law Association, P.A. for a review of your claim. An experienced Florida property insurance attorney can evaluate the insurer’s position, determine what benefits may still be owed, and explain the legal options available for pursuing a more complete recovery.