A Florida court has ruled in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation in a dispute over attorney’s fees related to a homeowner’s insurance claim. The Third District Court of Appeal issued its opinion on August 19, 2026, reversing a lower court’s decision that denied Citizens’ request for fees. This ruling affects homeowners and insurance companies across Florida, clarifying the standards for settlement proposals in insurance disputes.
The case, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Maria Blanco Suarez, was filed under docket number 3D2024-2256. It began when Maria Suarez and her husband, Christopher Suarez, filed a lawsuit against Citizens after the company denied their insurance claim for damages caused by Hurricane Irma in September 2017. The couple claimed damages totaling $141,580.36 but faced challenges in their case due to procedural issues.
Citizens denied the claim, arguing that the Suarezes failed to provide timely notice of the loss and did not submit necessary documents as required by their policy. This led to the company asserting several defenses, including the claim that the couple violated their obligations under the insurance policy, which ultimately prejudiced Citizens’ ability to investigate the claim.
In March 2021, Citizens made a settlement offer of just $100 to each plaintiff, which the Suarezes did not accept. Following this, Citizens filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted in favor of Citizens. After winning the summary judgment, Citizens sought attorney’s fees based on the Suarezes’ refusal to accept the settlement offer. However, the trial court denied this request, stating that the offer was not made in good faith.
The Third District Court of Appeal, led by Judge Fernandez, reviewed the trial court's decision and found that it had abused its discretion. The court stated, “The obligation of good faith merely insists that the offeror have some reasonable foundation on which to base an offer.” The judges concluded that Citizens had a reasonable basis for its nominal offer due to the Suarezes’ failure to comply with policy requirements.
The court emphasized that the Suarezes waited two years after the hurricane to report their claim and did not provide the requested documents. These factors were crucial in determining that Citizens’ offer was made in good faith. The court noted that the trial court's reasoning, which included a lack of discovery requests prior to the settlement offer, was irrelevant since the basis for the offer was apparent before the lawsuit was filed.
In reversing the trial court's order, the Third District Court of Appeal instructed the lower court to grant Citizens’ motion for attorney’s fees. This ruling aligns with previous court decisions, such as State Farm Florida Insurance Company v. Laughlin-Alfonso, where the court found that an insurance company had a reasonable basis for a nominal settlement offer when the insured failed to provide necessary documentation.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both homeowners and insurance companies in Florida. It clarifies that insurance companies can make nominal settlement offers based on reasonable grounds without being considered in bad faith. This decision may influence how future insurance claims are handled and how settlement proposals are structured.
Going forward, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving insurance disputes in Florida. It reinforces the importance of compliance with policy requirements for homeowners and may lead to more cautious handling of claims by insurance companies. The ruling also raises questions about how nominal offers will be viewed in the context of good faith negotiations.
As for what’s next, details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the Suarezes plan to appeal this decision or if there are related cases pending. However, the ruling has the potential to influence future litigation involving insurance claims and settlement proposals in Florida.