The Third District Court of Appeal in Florida has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a bad faith claim against American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida. This ruling affects Joshua Fonollosa and others who alleged that the insurance company failed to fulfill its obligations under their policy. The court's decision highlights the importance of providing specific details in civil remedy notices when making such claims.
The case, titled Joshua Fonollosa v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida, was filed on October 22, 2026, under docket number 3D2024-1777. The appeal arose from a decision made by the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The judges involved in the appeal were not specified in the opinion, but the ruling was a per curiam decision, meaning it was issued collectively by the judges without a detailed opinion from a single judge.
The dispute began when Fonollosa and other appellants filed a claim against American Integrity Insurance, alleging that the company acted in bad faith by not honoring their insurance policy. The case reached the appellate court after the lower court dismissed their claim, stating that the civil remedy notice submitted by the appellants did not meet the necessary specificity requirements outlined in Florida law.
According to the court's ruling, the civil remedy notice must include specific information as mandated by Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b). This includes the statutory provision allegedly violated by the insurer, the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation, and references to relevant policy language. The court cited previous cases to support its decision, noting that failure to comply with these requirements could lead to dismissal of the claim.
The court ruled that the appellants' civil remedy notice failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue, which is essential for a valid bad faith claim.
In its opinion, the court referenced several cases, including Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, which affirmed dismissals of similar claims due to insufficient civil remedy notices. The court emphasized that even under a more lenient substantial compliance test, the appellants' notice did not meet the necessary criteria.
The ruling reinforces the legal standard that claimants must adhere to when filing bad faith claims against insurance companies in Florida. It serves as a reminder that specificity in civil remedy notices is crucial for the success of such claims. The court's decision also indicates that trial courts have discretion in denying motions for reconsideration or rehearing if the issues could have been raised earlier.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate parties involved. It sets a precedent for future cases where insured individuals seek to hold their insurance companies accountable for bad faith actions. Insurers may feel more secure in their practices, knowing that courts will closely scrutinize the specificity of civil remedy notices.
Going forward, individuals filing bad faith claims against insurance companies in Florida must ensure that their civil remedy notices are detailed and comply with statutory requirements. This ruling may lead to stricter adherence to these requirements, potentially affecting how claims are filed and processed in the future.
As for what’s next, it remains to be seen whether the appellants will seek to appeal this decision further. The court's ruling is not final until any timely filed motion for rehearing is resolved. There may also be related cases pending that could further clarify the standards for civil remedy notices in Florida.