A Florida court has ruled that Progressive Select Insurance Company is not responsible for paying attorney fees related to a case involving the estate of Howard Mathews. The ruling, issued on July 29, 2026, affects how insurance policies are interpreted in terms of coverage for legal costs. This decision is significant for policyholders and insurers alike, as it clarifies the limits of coverage under certain circumstances.
The case began when Donna Hurst, acting as the personal representative of Howard Mathews' estate, appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Manatee County. The dispute arose after Mathews, who had been injured in a car accident involving Daymon Bell, rejected an offer from Progressive Select Insurance to settle the claim for $100,000. The case eventually went to trial, where the jury ruled in favor of Mathews.
After the trial, the court issued a judgment against Bell, which included a separate judgment for attorney's fees and costs awarded to Mathews' estate. Hurst then sought to add Progressive Select Insurance to this judgment, claiming that the insurance company should be responsible for the attorney fees due to its coverage of Bell. However, the court denied this request, leading to the appeal.
The court's ruling focused on the specific language of Progressive's insurance policy. The judge noted that the policy included a provision stating that it would pay for expenses related to the defense of an insured person but explicitly excluded attorney fees awarded against the insured. The court stated, “The attorney's fee judgment the Estate seeks to collect from Progressive is, in ordinary terms, an award of attorney's fees assessed against Progressive's insured, Mr. Bell.”
The court further explained that the policy's language was clear and unambiguous, stating that the fees in question were not covered. The ruling emphasized that insurance policies must be interpreted according to their plain language and that courts cannot create coverage where the policy explicitly excludes it. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that “the policy does not cover the attorney's fee portion of the judgment.”
This ruling has important implications for both policyholders and insurance companies. It clarifies that insurers may not be liable for attorney fees in cases where their policies specifically exclude such coverage. This decision may influence future cases involving similar disputes over insurance policy language and coverage limits.
Moving forward, this case sets a precedent for how courts interpret insurance policies regarding attorney fees. It reinforces the principle that the specific language of a policy governs the extent of coverage and that courts will uphold the terms as written. This could impact how insurers draft their policies and how individuals approach insurance claims in the future.
As for what’s next, it is unclear whether Hurst will seek further legal action or if there are related cases pending that could affect this ruling. The option to appeal to a higher court remains, but details on any potential next steps were not available in the court filing.