UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. _______________________ 

KEITH PEARCE, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, STATE FARM FIRE & 

CASUALTY COMPANY, and STATE

FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Keith Pearce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, through 

undersigned counsel, files this Class Action Complaint against Defendants, State Farm General 

Insurance Company, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, and State Farm Florida Insurance 

Company (collectively, “State Farm”), and alleges the following based on personal knowledge as 

to allegations regarding the Plaintiff and on information and belief as to other allegations. 

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a class action brought pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure on behalf of Plaintiff individually and others similarly situated who were paid a total 

loss claim pursuant to a State Farm Personal Articles Policy (“PAP”) but were not refunded State 

Farm’s unearned premium as required by the policy terms. 

2. State Farm’s PAPs all contain essentially the same terms. PAP premiums are

determined by the “amount insured,” which is based on the appraised value of the insured personal 

Case 9:22-cv-81572-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 1 of 10
2

article. In the event of a claim for total loss, however, State Farm does not pay the amount insured, 

but only the “replacement value” of the insured article as determined by State Farm. When the 

replacement value paid on a total loss claim is less than the amount insured, the PAPs require State 

Farm to refund its “unearned premium” – i.e., the difference between the premium actually paid 

by the insured over the life of the policy (based on the appraised value of the insured article) and 

the premium that would have been paid based on the ultimate replacement value of the insured 

article. But State Farm, as a common and uniform business practice and protocol, does not refund 

this unearned premium, thereby breaching its contracts with members of the Class. 

3. As a result, Plaintiff, and each Class Member, has been damaged in the amount of 

the unearned premium that State Farm should have refunded upon payment of a total loss claim

but did not refund.

4. On behalf of himself and the proposed Class, Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of 

contract and, alternatively, unjust enrichment. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed 

Class, seeks actual monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff, Keith Pearce, is an individual over the age of 21 residing in Indian River 

County, Florida, within the Southern District of Florida.

6. State Farm General Insurance Company is an Illinois corporation. State Farm 

General Insurance Company directed its business activities, including solicitation and execution 

of PAPs, to residents of the State of Florida, including within the Southern District of Florida, from 

which it has derived pecuniary gain. State Farm General Insurance Company’s principal place of 

business is located at One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois, 61710.

Case 9:22-cv-81572-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 2 of 10
3

7. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company is an Illinois corporation. State Farm Fire & 

Casualty Company directed its business activities, including solicitation and execution of PAPs, 

to residents of the State of Florida, including within the Southern District of Florida, from which 

it has derived pecuniary gain. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company’s principal place of business 

is located at One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois, 61710.

8. State Farm Florida Insurance Company is a Florida corporation. State Farm Florida 

Insurance Company directed its business activities, including solicitation and execution of PAPs, 

to residents of the State of Florida, including within the Southern District of Florida, from which 

it has derived pecuniary gain. State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s principal place of business 

is located at 7401 Cypress Gardens Blvd, Winter Haven, Florida, 33888.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This action is brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

10. This Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because this action is a class action in which the matter in controversy exceeds 

the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and Plaintiff and certain members 

of the Class are citizens of a State different from Defendants. 

11. Venue is proper pursuant to Chapter 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) because Defendants 

are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Venue is also proper because Plaintiff resides 

in this District.

12. This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over State Farm General Insurance 

Company pursuant to § 48.193, Fla. Stat., because this action arises out of State Farm General 

Insurance Company, personally or through an agent, operating, conducting, engaging in, or 

Case 9:22-cv-81572-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 3 of 10
4

carrying out a business or business venture in this State. Further, this Court may exercise personal 

jurisdiction over State Farm General Insurance Company because it, personally or through an 

agent, breached a contract within this State. And this Court may further exercise personal 

jurisdiction over State Farm General Insurance Company because it, personally or through an 

agent, engaged in substantial and not isolated activity in the State.

13. This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over State Farm Fire & Casualty 

Company pursuant to § 48.193, Fla. Stat., because this action arises out of State Farm Fire & 

Casualty Company, personally or through an agent, operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying

out a business or business venture in this State. Further, this Court may exercise personal 

jurisdiction over State Farm Fire & Casualty Company because it, personally or through an agent, 

breached a contract within this State. And this Court may further exercise personal jurisdiction 

over State Farm Fire & Casualty Company because it, personally or through an agent, engaged in 

substantial and not isolated activity in the State.

14. This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over State Farm Florida Insurance 

Company pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b)(1) because State Farm Florida Insurance Company is a 

Florida corporation residing in this State. 

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

15. State Farm is the largest provider of property and auto insurance in the United 

States. Its total revenue in 2021, which includes premium revenue, earned investment income, and 

realized capital gains (losses), was $82.2 billion. 

16. At all times material, the relevant and material terms of State Farm’s PAPs were 

common and uniform across the Class. 

Case 9:22-cv-81572-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 4 of 10
5

17. Keith Pearce agreed to a State Farm PAP in January of 2016 to insure a diamond 

pendant. The amount insured was $34,496.00, which was based on an appraisal that State Farm 

required Mr. Pearce to obtain before issuing the policy. 

18. Paragraph 3 of the PAP “Conditions” provides as follows:

Loss Settlement: 

We have the option of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property. Unless 

otherwise stated in this policy, covered property values will be determined at the time of 

loss or damage. We will pay the cost of repair or replacement, but not more than the 

smallest of the following amounts:

a. the full amount of our cost to repair the property to its condition immediately 

prior to the loss or damage; 

b. the full amount of our cost to replace the item with one substantially identical 

to the item lost or damaged;

c. any special limit of liability described in this policy; or

d. the limit of liability applicable to the property.

19. Paragraph 5 of the PAP “Conditions” provides as follows:

Loss Clause: The amount of insurance under this policy will not be reduced except for a 

total loss of the scheduled item. We will refund the unearned premium applicable to such 

item after the loss or you may apply it to the premium due for the replacement of the 

scheduled item.

20. After the pendant was stolen on January 15, 2021, Mr. Pearce made a claim for 

total loss under the State Farm PAP. State Farm paid that claim in the amount of $12,741.66 (37% 

of the amount insured), which according to State Farm represented the pendant’s purported 

“replacement value” as set forth in Paragraph 3(b) of the policy “Conditions.” 

21. Pursuant to Paragraph 5 (Loss Clause), State Farm was required to refund its

unearned premium, i.e., the difference between the premium Mr. Pearce paid over the life of the 

policy for the amount insured ($34,496.00) and the premium he would have paid to insure the 

article based on the replacement value ($12,741.66). But State Farm never refunded its unearned 

premium to Mr. Pearce, thereby breaching the parties’ agreement.

Case 9:22-cv-81572-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 5 of 10
6

22. State Farm has engaged in the same, uniform unlawful conduct with respect to the 

entire Class. State Farm requires that the amount insured under its PAPs be determined by the 

appraised value of the article. State Farm knows that appraisals typically inflate the value of 

personal articles and that the amount insured under its PAPs is much greater than the replacement 

cost of the insured item. State Farm, therefore, collects premiums based on an amount insured that 

far exceeds its actual exposure under its PAPs.

23. In the event of a total loss, the PAPs require State Farm to refund the excess, 

unearned premium it collected over the life of the policy based on the inflated amount insured. But 

State Farm, as a uniform practice and policy, does not refund its unearned premium after paying 

claims for total loss under its PAPs, thereby breaching its agreements with Class members.

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

24. Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and as a class action pursuant to Rule 

23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class Plaintiff proposes to represent is defined as 

follows: 

All persons who, since January 31, 2017, were paid a claim for total loss pursuant 

to a PAP policy issued by State Farm and were not refunded the unearned premium 

that State Farm collected over the life of the policy (the “Class”).

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, their directors 

and officers, and members of their immediate families. Also excluded from the Class are the Court, 

the spouse or partner of the Court, if applicable, all persons within the third degree of relationship 

to the Court and its spouse or partner, and the spouses of all such persons.

25. The prerequisites to class representation pursuant to Rule 23(a) are present in this 

action as follows: 

Case 9:22-cv-81572-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 6 of 10
7

A. Numerosity. The members of the Class are so numerous and 

geographically diverse that joinder of all of them is impracticable. While the exact number and 

identities of members of the Class are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained 

through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that there are thousands of 

Class members in the State of Florida and throughout the United States.

B. Commonality: There are questions of fact and law common to the claims 

of Plaintiff and the members of the Class that predominate over any questions affecting any 

individual members including, among others, the following questions:

1. Whether State Farm breached its PAPs by failing to refund its unearned 

premium to Class members following payment of a claim for total loss; and

3. Whether State Farm was unjustly enriched by failing to refund its unearned 

premium to Class members following payment of a claim for total loss pursuant to its PAPs.

C. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members 

of the Class in that Plaintiff alleges a common course of conduct by Defendants towards members 

of the Class. Plaintiff, like other members of the respective Class, was paid a claim for total loss 

pursuant to a PAP issued by State Farm, but State Farm failed to refund its unearned premium in 

violation of the terms of that policy. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class seek identical 

remedies under identical legal theories, and there is no antagonism or material factual variation 

between Plaintiff’s claims and those of the respective Class.

D. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

Class. Plaintiff’s claims are coextensive with, and not antagonistic to, the claims of the other 

members of the Class. Plaintiff is willing and able to vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of 

the Class, and Plaintiff has retained competent counsel experienced in litigation of this nature.

Case 9:22-cv-81572-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 7 of 10
8

26. Plaintiff brings this action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure because common questions of law and fact predominate over questions of law and fact 

affecting individual members of the Class. Indeed, the predominant issues in this action are 

whether State Farm has, in a uniform manner, failed to refund its unearned premium to members 

of the Class after paying claims for total loss under its PAPs, and whether this conduct constitutes 

a breach of its PAPs. 

27. The expense of litigating each Class member’s claim individually would be so cost 

prohibitive as to deny Class members a viable remedy. Should individual Class members be 

required to bring separate actions, this Court would be confronted with a multiplicity of lawsuits 

burdening the court system while also creating the risk of inconsistent rulings and contradictory 

judgments. In contrast to proceeding on a case-by-case basis, in which inconsistent results will 

magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system, this class action presents far 

fewer management difficulties while providing unitary adjudication, economies of scale and 

comprehensive supervision by this Court. Certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure is, therefore, appropriate because a class action is superior to the other available methods 

for the fair and efficient adjudication of this action, and Plaintiff envisions no unusual difficulty in 

the management of this action as a class action.

COUNT I

BREACH OF CONTRACT

28. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 27 as if fully 

set forth herein.

29. The PAP agreed to by State Farm and Plaintiff was a valid, binding contract. 

30. Plaintiff has performed all, or substantially all, of the obligations imposed on him 

under the contract. 

Case 9:22-cv-81572-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 8 of 10
9

31. State Farm materially breached the contract by failing to refund its unearned 

premium to Plaintiff after paying a claim for total loss of the insured article. 

32. State Farm’s breach of the contract was the actual and proximate cause of damages 

suffered by Plaintiff and the Class.

COUNT II

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

33. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 27 as if fully 

set forth herein.

34. This Count is pled in the alternative to Count I – Breach of Contract.

35. As a result of the conduct described in this Complaint, State Farm retained unearned 

premiums to which it was not entitled and was, therefore unjustly enriched.

36. In equity and good conscience, State Farm should not be permitted to retain the 

unearned premiums paid by Plaintiff and members of the Class.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, prays for 

relief and judgment against State Farm as follows:

A. An order certifying the Class under the appropriate provisions of Rule 23 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing Plaintiff and his legal counsel 

to represent the Class;

B. Damages as provided by law;

C. Restitution in the amount of unearned premiums State Farm has inequitably 

retained;

D. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the Class, as allowed by law;

Case 9:22-cv-81572-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 9 of 10
10

 E. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to counsel for the Class if and when 

 pecuniary benefits are obtained on behalf of the Class; 

F. Injunctive relief requiring State Farm to honor its obligation under its PAPs to 

refund unearned premiums following payment of a claim for total loss of the 

insured item; and

 G. Such other and further relief as is just and proper. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all members of the proposed Class, hereby demands 

a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

DATED this 13th day of October, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,

 /s/ Peter Prieto 

PETER PRIETO

 pprieto@podhurst.com 

 Florida Bar No. 501492 

 John Gravante 

 jgravante@podhurst.com 

 Florida Bar No. 617113 

 Matthew Weinshall

 mweinshall@podhurst.com 

 Florida Bar No. 84783 

 PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.

 One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300 

 Miami, Florida 33131 

 Phone: (305) 358-2800 

 Fax: (305) 358-2382 

 

 Michael Rudd

mrudd@rudddiamond.com

 Florida Bar No. 782416 

 Rudd & Diamond PA 

 400 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 120-N 

 Hollywood, Florida 33021 

 Phone: (954) 961-5059 

 Fax: (954) 961-8953 

Case 9:22-cv-81572-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 10 of 10