DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC; and MICHAEL ARLINE, JR.,

Appellants,

v.

LUKE FRAZIER,

Appellee.

No. 2D22-1689

April 3, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emmett L. 

Battles, Judge.

Sharon C. Degnan of Kubicki Draper, Orlando, for Appellants.

Kerry C. McGuinn, Jr., and Carla M. Sabbagh of Rywant, Alvarez, Jones, 

Russo & Guyton, PA, Tampa; and Brigid F. Cech and Bethany J.M. 

Pandher of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, for Appellee.

KELLY, Judge.

Appellee Luke Frazier sued The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., 

and Michael Arline, Jr., an employee in Hanover's Special Investigations 

Unit, for malicious prosecution after Frazier was acquitted of charges of 

making a false statement in support of an insurance claim and grand 

theft arising from statements Frazier made to Hanover in connection with 
2

an insurance claim. Hanover and Arline responded, asserting immunity 

from suit under section 626.989(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2011), which 

provides immunity from civil liability to persons furnishing information 

related to suspected fraudulent insurance acts. Both at the summary 

judgment stage and at trial, the trial court rejected the claims of 

immunity and ultimately entered judgment in favor of Frazier. In this 

appeal, Hanover and Arline argue, among other things, that the trial 

court erred when it rejected their claims of immunity. We agree and 

reverse.1

Before reciting the facts surrounding Frazier's claim of malicious 

prosecution, we think it is important to understand the statutory scheme 

underlying the events leading to the filing of criminal charges against 

Frazier. Every insurer admitted to do business in Florida is statutorily 

required to establish and maintain an "anti-fraud investigative unit" or 

division, commonly called a special investigations unit (SIU), to 

investigate and report possible fraudulent insurance acts by insureds or 

by persons making claims against policies held by insureds. See 

§ 626.9891(1).2 If an insurer has knowledge or believes that a fraudulent 

insurance act that would be a felony or misdemeanor has been 

committed, it must send a report to the Division of Investigative and 

Forensic Services ("DIFS"), a unit of the Department of Financial 

1 Hanover and Arline also unsuccessfully sought a directed verdict 

and judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict, arguing Frazier's 

evidence was insufficient to prove malicious prosecution, an issue they 

have pursued in this appeal as well. We need not reach the issue 

because our determination that Hanover and Arline had immunity from 

suit is dispositive. 

2 In the current version of the statute, this provision appears in 

subsection (2). See § 626.9891(2), Fla. Stat. (2023).
3

Services, detailing the information it has giving rise to its suspicion. See

§ 626.989(6).3 This reporting is mandatory. Individuals can also file 

reports with DIFS. Id. Upon receiving a report, DIFS conducts an 

independent investigation to determine the extent, if any, to which a 

fraudulent insurance act has been committed. Id. Should DIFS's 

investigation lead it to conclude that there has been a violation of law, it 

is required by statute to report it to the state attorney or other 

prosecuting agency having jurisdiction over the violation. Id. If the state 

attorney does not begin a prosecution within sixty days after receiving 

the report, or if it declines to prosecute, it must inform DIFS of the 

reasons. Id.

As part of this legislatively mandated anti-fraud program, section 

626.989(4)(c) provides insurers and their employees immunity from civil 

actions, absent fraud or bad faith, arising out of the furnishing of the 

information required by the statute:

(c) In the absence of fraud or bad faith, a person is not 

subject to civil liability for libel, slander, or any other relevant 

tort by virtue of filing reports, without malice, or furnishing 

other information, without malice, required by this section or 

required by the department or division under the authority 

granted in this section, and no civil cause of action of any 

nature shall arise against such person:

1. For any information relating to suspected fraudulent 

insurance acts or persons suspected of engaging in such acts 

furnished to or received from law enforcement officials, their 

agents, or employees;

2. For any information relating to suspected fraudulent 

insurance acts or persons suspected of engaging in such acts 

furnished to or received from other persons subject to the 

provisions of this chapter;

3 In the current version of the statute, subsection (6) is divided into 

parts (a)–(c). See § 626.989(6)(a)–(c), Fla. Stat. (2023).
4

3. For any such information furnished in reports to the 

department, the division, the National Insurance Crime 

Bureau, the National Association of Insurance 

Commissioners, or any local, state, or federal enforcement 

officials or their agents or employees; or

4. For other actions taken in cooperation with any of the 

agencies or individuals specified in this paragraph in the 

lawful investigation of suspected fraudulent insurance acts.

Hanover and Arline claim immunity under this provision.

Arline, as an SIU investigator, was tasked with investigating a 

dispute that arose after Frazier was involved in a minor collision while 

driving a car owned by a Hanover insured, Marvic Grant. The driver of 

the other car involved in the collision, Wendy Williams, filed a claim with 

Hanover. In her sworn statement to Hanover, she said that the collision 

happened when Frazier swerved into her lane as the cars approached a 

toll plaza and the front driver's side of his car struck the rear passenger 

side of her car. She told Hanover there was only minor damage to both 

cars. Williams wanted to report the collision to the police, however 

Frazier convinced her not to call the police and, in exchange, Frazier 

agreed to let Williams make a cell phone video recording in which he 

admitted he hit the rear passenger side of Williams' car with the front 

driver's side of his car when he swerved into her lane as the cars 

approached a toll plaza.4 Williams also took photos of the damage to 

both cars.

Williams' claim went unresolved for almost a month while Hanover 

tried unsuccessfully to get a statement from Grant and Frazier. When 

4 In the video Frazier states he had gotten into an accident with 

Williams, had pulled over and hit the rear of her car with the front of 

Grant's car, and that he was "perfectly fine, not hurt, absolutely no 

injuries, it was a little scuff down the side like that, no G-force or 

anything, no airbags went off, no nothing . . . ."
5

the adjuster did finally speak to Frazier, his description of the collision 

and the resulting damage was different than the account Williams had 

provided.5 Frazier told Hanover that as the cars approached the toll 

plaza, Williams accelerated to get in front of him and the rear passenger 

side of her car hit the front driver's side of his car which then pushed his 

car into yellow posts near the toll booth causing damage to the passenger 

side of his car, not just the driver's side. Relying on Frazier's statement, 

Hanover's adjuster told Williams that he was holding her fifty percent 

responsible for the accident and that Hanover would compensate her 

accordingly. Williams told the adjuster this was unacceptable and that 

she intended to contact her carrier and retain an attorney.

Unbeknownst to Williams, at the time this took place Grant had 

filed a claim with Hanover for damage to her car, which included damage 

to the passenger side of the car. Williams first learned of Grant's claim 

when she got a subrogation letter from Hanover stating it was holding 

her responsible for nearly $5,000 in damages to Grant's car. Williams 

was stunned at the amount because the damage to Grant's car, as well 

as hers, had been minor. 

Angry about the liability determination as well as the amount of 

damages, Williams contacted a supervisor at Hanover. Subsequently, 

she learned that Grant, through Frazier, was claiming damages to both 

sides of her car. Williams disputed Frazier's account and provided 

Hanover with Frazier's video statement and the photos she had taken of 

the damage to both cars. She continued her contacts with Hanover 

asserting her belief that Frazier and Grant were acting fraudulently 

because they were claiming that both sides of Grant's car were damaged 

in the collision with her car. After approximately three months, Hanover 

5 Hanover was never able to get a statement from Grant.
6

assigned Arline to investigate the conflicting accounts given by Frazier 

and Williams.

In the meantime, Williams had already filed a fraud report with 

DIFS alleging that Frazier and Grant were claiming damage to Grant's 

car that was not related to the accident in which she was involved. 

Williams was adamant that there was only minor damage to the driver's 

side bumper and fender of Grant's car and that there was no impact or 

damage to the passenger side. Based on Williams' allegations, DIFS 

opened an investigation.

While DIFS's investigation was ongoing, Arline concluded his 

investigation and based on Williams' sworn statements, Frazier's video 

statement obtained by Williams, Williams' photos, Hanover's photos of 

the damage to the passenger side of Grant's car, and an inspection of the 

toll plaza, he concluded that the damage to the passenger side of Grant's 

car was not caused by the collision with Williams.6 Thus, he concluded 

Grant should have filed two claims with Hanover, not one, and been 

subject to two deductibles. As required by section 626.989(6), Arline 

filed a report with DIFS, noting in the report that it was a supplement or 

duplicate of the report Williams had filed several months earlier. 

As part its investigation, DIFS's investigator, Tom Eberhart, 

interviewed Williams, reviewed her video of Frazier and the photos she 

took after the accident, interviewed Grant's neighbor and stepdaughter, 

and visited the toll plaza. Eberhart also obtained a copy of Arline's file 

along with Hanover's claims file. He was unable to obtain statements 

from either Grant or Frazier. Ultimately, Eberhart determined that there 

was probable cause to believe that Grant and Frazier "made material 

6 Despite repeated attempts, he was not able to obtain statements 

from Grant or Frazier.
7

misrepresentations of fact in their claim" with Hanover in that they 

claimed Grant's car was damaged on the passenger side during the 

accident when it was not. He concluded that the damage on the 

passenger side was caused by a second accident that "was not disclosed." 

He then referred the matter to the state attorney's office. Frazier and 

Grant were charged with making a false statement to an insurance 

company and grand theft. After a jury found Frazier not guilty, he filed 

this action for malicious prosecution against Hanover and Arline.7

On appeal, Hanover and Arline argue the trial court erred in 

denying their claims of immunity because all Arline did was investigate 

and report the suspected fraud as he was statutorily required to do. See

§§ 626.989, 626.9891. The undisputed record evidence shows that 

Arline was tasked with investigating after Frazier gave conflicting 

accounts of the accident—one on the post-accident video and one to the 

adjuster. Further, Frazier's statement to the adjuster not only conflicted 

with his video statement, but it was also at odds with Williams' sworn 

statements. Arline also visited the accident scene, reviewed photos 

supplied by Williams, photos taken by Hanover's adjuster, and he 

concluded that the damage to the passenger side of Grant's car was not 

caused by the collision with Williams. Because this information gave 

Arline a basis to believe that Frazier had made a false statement in 

connection with Grant's claim, pursuant to the anti-fraud statute he was 

required to supply the information he had gathered to DIFS. See

§ 626.989(6).

Absent fraud or bad faith, section 626.989(4)(c) immunizes insurers 

and their employees if they have done what is required by the anti-fraud 

statute. See Saenz v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 861 So. 2d 64, 67 (Fla. 

7 The charges against Grant were dropped before trial. 
8

3d DCA 2003) (affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment for 

the defense based on immunity in an action for malicious prosecution, 

where the undisputed record evidence showed that neither State Farm 

nor its investigator acted fraudulently or in bad faith in reporting the 

matter to DIFS). Frazier's evidence entirely failed to show fraud or bad 

faith in connection with Arline's investigation or report to DIFS.8 

Accordingly, we conclude that Arline and Hanover were statutorily 

immune from suit, and we reverse the judgment in favor of Frazier and 

remand for entry of judgment in favor of Hanover and Arline.

Reversed and remanded.

SILBERMAN and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

8 We have not overlooked Frazier's argument that Arline's report in 

places confuses left and right when referring to the location of the 

damage Hanover alleges was sustained in a second collision. In other 

words, in places the report says "left" instead of "right." We reject the 

argument that this error, which is obvious when viewed in context, could 

have even been misleading, much less amount to fraud or bad faith. The 

gist of the suspected fraud was that Grant, through Frazier, was claiming 

damages to both sides of her car—not just one side—from the collision 

with Williams.