UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-cv-22891-KMM

SANDRA SAFONT f/k/a 

SANDRA S. MARIN, THOMAS

BARBATO and YVONNE BARBATO,

individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION

v.

STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, Thomas Barbato and Yvonne Barbato, file this Second Amended Class Action 

Complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant, State 

Farm Florida Insurance Company, and allege:

INTRODUCTION

1. Pursuant to a standardized homeowners insurance policy with insureds like 

Plaintiffs, State Farm must pay interest on claims it fails to pay within a certain timeframe. State 

Farm fails to do so, breaching the insurance contract and leading Plaintiffs to bring this class action 

on behalf of themselves and thousands of other State Farm insureds. 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Plaintiff Thomas Barbato is a resident of Miami-Dade County and a citizen of 

Florida.

Case 1:22-cv-22891-KMM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2023 Page 1 of 9
CASE NO. 22-cv-22891-KMM

2

3. Plaintiff Yvonne Barbato is a resident of Miami-Dade County and a citizen of 

Florida.

4. Thomas Barbato and Yvonne Barbato (collectively, the “Barbatos” or “Plaintiffs”) 

are married.

5. Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”), is a Florida

corporation with its principal place of business in Florida.

6. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 

the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because (i) the matter in controversy 

exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs; (ii) there are members of the proposed Class 

who are citizens of different states than State Farm; and (iii) there are in the aggregate more than 

100 members of the proposed class. 

7. Personal Jurisdiction. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over State Farm

pursuant to Section 48.193(1)(a), Fla. Stat., because State Farm operates, conducts, engages in and 

carries on a business or business venture in this state; has an office or agency in this state; contracts 

to insure people, property or risk in this state at the time of contracting; and breached a contract in 

this state.

8. Venue. Venue is proper in this forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a 

substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, and 

because State Farm is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to this action.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Plaintiffs purchased from State Farm a residential property insurance policy for 

their respective homes (the “Policy”). The Policy is substantively identical to policies held by 

other persons who insured property with State Farm in Florida during the class period, including 

Case 1:22-cv-22891-KMM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2023 Page 2 of 9
CASE NO. 22-cv-22891-KMM

3

both Florida residents as well as (i) out-of-state owners of Florida property; and (ii) former citizens 

of Florida, who insured their properties with State Farm and who were not paid interest on their 

claims, as alleged below.

10. The Policy contains a “Loss Payment” provision stating that if State Farm does not 

pay or deny a claim within 90 days of receiving notice, then State Farm must pay interest:

8. Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you. We will 

pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally 

entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable:

a. 20 days after we receive your proof of loss and reach 

agreement with you; or

b. 60 days after we receive your proof of loss and:

(1) there is an entry of a final judgment; or 

(2) there is a filing of an appraisal award with us.

If we do not pay or deny a loss within 90 days after we receive 

notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance 

claim from you and no factors beyond our control would reasonably 

prevent us from making payment, interest will be paid in 

accordance with Section 627.70131(5) of the Florida Insurance 

Code. 

(emphasis added). A copy of the Barbatos’ Policy is attached as Exhibit 1. 

11. Like the Policy, the statute it incorporates by reference, Section 627.70131(5)(a), 

Fla. Stat. (2017), provides that interest must be included with payments not made within 90 days

of notice of loss. It further provides that if factors beyond an insurer’s control reasonably prevent 

payment from being made within 90 days, then payment must be made within 15 days of those 

factors ceasing to exist. An insurer’s failure to make payment within 15 days also requires the 

insurer to pay interest:

Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened or 

supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or 

deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by 

Case 1:22-cv-22891-KMM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2023 Page 3 of 9
CASE NO. 22-cv-22891-KMM

4

factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such 

payment. . . . Any payment of an initial or supplemental claim or portion of such 

claim made 90 days after the insurer receives notice of the claim, or made more 

than 15 days after there are no longer factors beyond the control of the insurer 

which reasonably prevented such payment, whichever is later, bears interest at 

the rate set forth in s. 55.03. Interest begins to accrue from the date the insurer 

receives notice of the claim. . . . The provisions of this subsection may not be 

waived, voided, or nullified by the terms of the insurance policy.

Fla. Stat. § 627.70131(5)(a) (2017).

12. On May 31, 2018, the Barbatos’ home was damaged by the failed sanitary plumbing 

system under their floor. They then provided State Farm with timely notice of an insurance claim 

seeking to cover the damage (the “Barbatos Claim”).

13. State Farm acknowledged that the Barbatos suffered an insured loss, but Plaintiffs

and State Farm failed to agree on the value of the losses.

14. The Policy contains an appraisal clause designed to resolve disputes as to the value 

of insured losses and to determine the amounts owed to the insured. In accordance with that clause, 

Plaintiffs’ dispute with State Farm went to an appraisal panel. 

15. On August 31, 2022, a panel issued and filed an Appraisal Award to the Barbatos

for the replacement cost of $136,945.38. 

16. However, State Farm failed to make payment of the Barbatos’ award (which was 

reduced to $125,456.02 after subtracting the deductible and other amounts) within 15 days. It did 

not mail payment for the award until October 20, 2022.

17. State Farm’s payment also fails to include any interest on their Claim.

18. Under Florida law, which applies to Plaintiffs and all Class members’ policies, even 

when there is a dispute as to the amount of a debt owed, once the debt is determined to be due, 

interest is allowed from the date the debt was due in accordance with the contract. This rule is 

applied to all contracts, including obligations owed under insurance contracts.

Case 1:22-cv-22891-KMM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2023 Page 4 of 9
CASE NO. 22-cv-22891-KMM

5

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

19. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated as 

members of a proposed class of: 

All persons insured by a residential property insurance policy issued by 

State Farm Florida Insurance Company, including such persons who are citizens of 

other countries or states other than Florida, who, since September 9, 2017, (1) gave 

notice of an initial or supplemental claim or portion of such claim for loss insured 

under the policy; (2) had the amount of loss payable on the claim determined by an 

appraisal process; (3) did not file suit on the claim; and (4) were paid by State Farm 

Florida Insurance Company for the claim more than 90 days after it received notice 

of the claim or more than 15 days after the amount of the loss was determined by 

an appraisal award, whichever is later. 

20. Excluded from the Class are State Farm and its directors, officers and employees, 

and the Judge to whom this action is assigned, and any member of the Judge’s staff and immediate 

family. 

21. This action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, because it meets all the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1-4), including the 

numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements, and it satisfies the requirements 

of Rule 23(b)(3), in that the predominance and superiority requirements are met. 

22. Numerosity. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members 

is impracticable. Although Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of Class members as of the 

date of filing, Plaintiffs believe that there are more than 1,000 Class members throughout the 

United States.

23. Commonality. There are numerous questions of fact or law that are common to 

Plaintiffs and all the members of the Class. Common issues of fact and law predominate over any 

issues unique to individual Class members. Issues that are common to all Class members include, 

but are not limited to:

Case 1:22-cv-22891-KMM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2023 Page 5 of 9
CASE NO. 22-cv-22891-KMM

6

a. whether State Farm failed to timely pay Class members’ insurance claims pursuant to 

the Policy’s Loss Payment provision and the statute referenced in that provision;

b. whether State Farm breached the Policy by failing to pay interest to Class members; 

and

c. the relief that should be afforded to Plaintiffs and the Class.

24. Typicality. Plaintiffs have claims that are typical of the claims of all members of 

the Class. Plaintiffs’ Policy contained the same Loss Payment provision as the other Class 

members’ policies. (State Farm issues homeowner’s insurance policies on standardized forms that 

are filed with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation). Like the other Class members, Plaintiffs

are owed interest under the Policy because State Farm failed to timely pay Plaintiffs’ claims. 

25. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the 

interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiffs do not have claims that are unique to Plaintiffs

and not the other Class members, nor are there defenses unique to Plaintiffs that could undermine 

the efficient resolution of the claims of the Class. Further, Plaintiffs are committed to the vigorous 

prosecution of this action and have retained competent counsel, experienced in class action 

litigation, to represent Plaintiffs. There is no hostility between Plaintiffs and the unnamed Class 

members. Plaintiffs anticipate no difficulty in the management of this litigation as a class action.

26. Predominance. Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions 

affecting only individual Class members. The only individual issues likely to arise will be the 

amount of damages recovered by each Class member, the calculation of which does not bar 

certification.

27. Superiority. A class action is superior to all other feasible alternatives for the 

resolution of this matter. Individual litigation of multiple cases would be highly inefficient and 

Case 1:22-cv-22891-KMM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2023 Page 6 of 9
CASE NO. 22-cv-22891-KMM

7

would waste the resources of the courts and of the parties. The damages sought by Plaintiffs and 

Class members are relatively small and unlikely to warrant individual lawsuits given the fees and 

costs, including expert costs, required to prosecute the claims.

28. Manageability. This case is well-suited for treatment as a class action and easily 

can be managed as a class action since evidence of both liability and damages can be adduced, and 

proof of liability and damages can be presented, on a classwide basis, while the allocation and 

distribution of damages to Class members would be essentially a ministerial function.

29. Ascertainability. Class members are readily ascertainable. The class members are 

identifiable from information and records in the possession, custody or control of State Farm.

30. Plaintiffs have retained counsel to protect Plaintiffs’ rights under the Policy.

31. All conditions precedent to this action have occurred or have been waived.

COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT

32. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 31 as if fully set forth 

herein.

33. Plaintiffs and State Farm each entered into a contract (the Policy) whereby State 

Farm agreed to insure Plaintiffs’ residences for losses covered under the terms of the Policy.

34. Plaintiffs suffered an insured loss and made a claim under the Policy.

35. On the date the Appraisal Awards were issued, there were no longer factors beyond 

State Farm’s control that reasonably prevented it from making the claim payments owed to 

Plaintiffs.

36. Yet State Farm failed to pay the principal amount owed to Plaintiffs pursuant to the 

Appraisal Award within 15 days of the Appraisal Award’s issuance. 

Case 1:22-cv-22891-KMM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2023 Page 7 of 9
CASE NO. 22-cv-22891-KMM

8

37. As a result of State Farm’s failure to timely pay, Plaintiffs were entitled to payment 

of interest as required by the Policy’s Loss Payment provision and the statute referenced in that 

provision. But State Farm breached the Policy by failing to include in its payments to Plaintiffs

any interest at the rate set forth in Section 55.03, Fla. Stat., from the date State Farm received

notice of Plaintiffs’ claim.

38. As a result of State Farm’s breach of the Policy, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all Class members, respectfully 

demand judgment against Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, for:

(a) Damages;

(b) Pre-judgment and post judgment interest;

(c) Attorneys’ fees and costs; and

(d) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUÑEZ P.A. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN

SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP

By: /s/ Frank R. Rodriguez By: /s/Jason Kellogg

Frank R. Rodriguez Jason K. Kellogg, P.A.

Florida Bar No. 348988 Florida Bar No. 0578401

Primary email: frr@rtgn-law.com Primary email: jk@lklsg.com

Paulino A. Núñez Jr. Lawrence A. Kellogg

Florida Bar No. 814806 Florida Bar No. 328601

Primary email: pan@rtgn-law.com Primary email: lak@lklsg.com

255 Alhambra Circle 200 Southeast Second Avenue

Suite 1150 Miami Tower, 36th Floor

Coral Gables, FL 33134 Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 350-2300 Telephone: (305) 403-8788

Facsimile: (305) 350-2525 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789

Case 1:22-cv-22891-KMM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2023 Page 8 of 9
CASE NO. 22-cv-22891-KMM

9

KNECHT LAW GROUP

/s/ Michael C. Knecht

Michael C. Knecht, Esq.

658 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 211

Jupiter, Florida 33458

Phone: 561 745 2110

Email: mck@mikeknecht.com

susan@mikeknecht.com

Florida Bar No: 475815

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 8, 2023, the foregoing document was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record in the manner specified, via transmission 

of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

By: /s/ Jason Kellogg

Case 1:22-cv-22891-KMM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2023 Page 9 of 9