Court Opinion

ID: 9903902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:09:20.989561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:45.846192
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                     FIFTH DISTRICT

                                   NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                   FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                   DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

THOMAS DEMASE AND
JOANNE DEMASE,

           Appellants,

v.                                        Case No.    5D21-2078
                                          LT Case No. 2015-CA-1361

STATE FARM FLORIDA
INSURANCE COMPANY,

         Appellee.
________________________________/

Opinion filed November 14, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Hernando County,
Donald Scaglione, Judge.

George A. Vaka and Nancy A.
Lauten, of Vaka Law Group, P.L.,
Tampa, for Appellants.

Ezequiel Lugo, of Banker Lopez
Gassler, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

     Thomas and Joanne Demase (“the Demases”) appeal the final

summary judgment entered in favor of State Farm Florida Insurance
Company (“State Farm”). Specifically, the Demases argue the trial court

erred in ruling their civil remedy notice (“CRN”) was ineffective as a matter

of law, contending their CRN was legally sufficient and State Farm failed to

cure the alleged violations in the CRN. Because we conclude the CRN

lacked the requisite level of specificity, we reject the Demases’ arguments

and affirm the trial court in all respects.

                         BACKGROUND AND FACTS

      This first-party property insurance case arises out of a sinkhole claim

where the Demases filed a single count complaint against State Farm for

statutory bad faith, pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes. The

Demases’ CRN, a document required by section 624.155(3), was expressly

referenced in and was attached to the complaint. 1

      The CRN was prepared on the required form and alleged that State

Farm had violated fifteen statutes and twenty-two administrative regulations.

In response to “specific policy language that is relevant to the violation,” the

CRN implicated virtually the whole policy as follows:

      RELEVANT POLICY LANGUAGE

      1
        Upon State Farm’s motion to dismiss, the trial court initially dismissed
the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action because
it did not allege there was an underlying first-party action for insurance
benefits. This court reversed in Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.,
239 So. 3d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
                                         2
      SPECIFIC POLICY LANGUAGE THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE
      VIOLATIONS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE
      FOLLOWING:

      SEE SUBJECT POLICY:

      STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO:
      [redacted]

      COVERAGE A–DWELLING
      ALL ADDITIONAL COVERAGE PROVISIONS
      ALL COVERAGE(S) PROVIDED BY ENDORSEMENT OR
      RIDER
      THE DECLARATIONS PAGE
      LOSS PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT PROVISION
      DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF LOSS POLICY PROVISION
      THE INSURANCE POLICY’S DEFINITION SECTION
      THE INSURANCE POLICY’S EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE
      PROVISIONS
      ALL INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS THAT PROVIDE
      COVERAGE TO THE INSURED PROPERTY
      ALL POLICY PROVISIONS.

      Ultimately, State Farm moved for summary judgment arguing the

Demases’ CRN upon which the lawsuit was based was invalid. Specifically,

State Farm argued that the CRN: (1) failed to identify the specific policy

language at issue; (2) failed to identify the specific statutory provisions State

Farm had allegedly violated; (3) failed to identify the person at State Farm

most responsible for the alleged violation; and (4) failed to state with

specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violation.

      In response, the Demases asserted that the motion for summary

judgment was legally insufficient, that State Farm could not challenge the
                                       3
CRN’s sufficiency based on waiver and estoppel, that State Farm was barred

from challenging the validity of the CRN because of the Department of

Financial Services’ (“the Department”) acceptance of the CRN, and that the

CRN was legally sufficient.

      The trial court granted the motion and entered final judgment for State

Farm, and this appeal ensued.

                          STANDARD OF REVIEW

      This court reviews de novo an order on a motion for summary

judgment. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Less Inst., 344 So. 3d 557, 559 (Fla.

3d DCA 2022).

                                  ANALYSIS

      This appeal presents the issue of whether the Demases’ CRN satisfied

the requirements of section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2014), which permits

civil actions against an insurer under certain circumstances, commonly

known as first-party bad faith claims. Relevant to this appeal, section

624.155(3) requires, as a condition precedent to bringing a first-party bad

faith case, that an insured provide timely notice of the alleged violation to the

authorized insurer and to the Department, as follows:

      (b) The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and
      shall state with specificity the following information, and such
      other information as the department may require:

                                       4
      1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the
      statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated.

      2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.

      3. The name of any individual involved in the violation.

      4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the
      violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third
      party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the
      specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not
      provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant
      to written request.

      5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right
      to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section.

            ....

      (d) No action shall lie if, within 60 days after filing notice, the
      damages are paid or the circumstances giving rise to the
      violation are corrected.

§ 624.155(3)(a), (b), (d), Fla. Stat. (2014). Thus, “the plain language

of section 624.155(3)(b) instructs the policyholder to ‘state with specificity’

information in the notice; to specify ‘language of the statute, which the

authorized insurer allegedly violated’ and to ‘[r]eference . . . specific policy

language that is relevant to the violation, if any.’” Julien v. United Prop. &

Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

      On appeal, the Demases argue that their CRN was legally sufficient

because it “substantially complied” with the above legal requirements

relating to CRNs. State Farm, by contrast, argues substantial compliance is

                                       5
insufficient, contending that section 624.155 is subject to strict construction

and requires strict compliance.

      We conclude that even under the more lenient substantial compliance

test, the Demases’ claim fails. Our sister court analyzed a remarkably similar

CRN applying a substantial compliance test in Julien. There, the Fourth

District determined that a CRN that listed nearly all policy sections and cited

thirty-five statutory provisions presented more than a technical defect and

therefore did not comply with section 624.155’s specificity requirements. The

same reasoning applies to the Demases’ CRN. As a result, the trial court

correctly determined that the Demases’ CRN was legally insufficient.

      In addition, we reject the Demases’ argument that the Department’s

acceptance of the CRN is entitled to great deference, thus demonstrating

compliance with the specificity requirements. 2 We align ourselves with our

sister court on this issue as well and disagree with the Demases. See Julien,

311 So. 3d at 879–80 (concluding that the Department’s failure to return an

insured’s CRN did not establish the CRN’s legal sufficiency; Department’s

      2
         We do not reach the merits of the Demases’ waiver argument
because their initial brief fails to challenge the specific grounds on which the
trial court decided the issue, and they have therefore waived argument on
that point. See Hagood v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 112 So. 3d 770, 771–72 (Fla.
5th DCA 2013) (holding that issue not raised in an initial brief is deemed
abandoned and may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief).
                                       6
authority does not determine legality of the notice and courts have an

independent obligation pursuant to Article V, section 21 of the Florida

Constitution to interpret statutes).

                                     CONCLUSION

      In sum, by applying the plain language of section 624.155, we

conclude the trial court properly determined the Demases’ CRN was legally

insufficient. As a result, we affirm the trial court’s order in its entirety.

      AFFIRMED.

WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
SASSO, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.

                                         7
                                                 Case No.    5D21-2078
                                                 LT Case No. 2015-CA-1361

SASSO, J., concurring specially.

      I fully agree with this court’s opinion affirming. However, I also write to

explain why State Farm correctly argues that substantial compliance with the

requirements of section 624.155 is not enough.

      First, I will address a threshold issue advanced by the Demases.

Specifically, they argue that section 624.155 is remedial in nature, and, as a

result, its requirements should be liberally construed in favor of permitting

the Demases access to the remedy contained within the statute. However,

the Florida Supreme Court has taken the opposite approach to construing

section 624.155. See Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.

2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000). There, the court held 3 that because section

624.155 is in derogation of common law, it should be strictly construed. Id.

Because we are required to follow Talat, we apply the statute as written and

do not extend the text by implication or judicial construction. See, e.g., Lee

      3
        As this conclusion was actually decided as an essential step on the
path to disposition, it does not appear to be dicta. See Pedroza v. State, 291
So. 3d 541, 547 (Fla. 2020) (“A holding consists of those propositions along
the chosen decisional path or paths of reasoning that (1) are actually
decided, (2) are based upon the facts of the case, and (3) lead to the
judgment.” (internal citations omitted)).

                                       8
v. Walgreen Drug Stores Co., 10 So. 2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1942). But see

Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal

Texts 318 (2012) (observing that the maxim that “statutes in derogation of

common law must be strictly construed” is a relic and there is no more reason

to reject a fair reading of a statute that changes the common law than there

is to reject a fair reading of a statute that repeals a prior statute).

      a. Substantial Compliance, Prejudice, and Waiver

      The manner in which we construe section 624.155 is important

because it informs my conclusion as to the Demases’ next argument: that

this court should conclude the Demases “substantially complied” with section

624.155’s CRN requirements, and, as a result, their CRN was legally

sufficient. For the following reasons, I reject this argument as well.

      Primarily, nothing in the text of section 624.155 permits “substantial

compliance” to be considered in determining the legal sufficiency of a CRN.

To the contrary, the statute employs the mandatory language “shall” when

specifying both the form and the content of the CRN. The statute further

requires that the content be stated “with specificity.” § 624.155(3)(b), Fla.

Stat. And if that were not clear enough, the statute then restates that a CRN

must state the “specific” statutory language and the “specific” policy

language relevant to the alleged violation. § 624.155(3)(b)1., (3)(b)4.

                                         9
     Despite the clarity of section 624.155’s specificity requirement, the

Demases urge this court to adopt a substantial compliance test employed by

federal district courts, including Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American

Insurance Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020), and Fox v. Starr

Indemnity & Liability Co., No. 8:16-cv-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294

(M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). In both cases, the district courts considered

whether an insured’s CRN was legally sufficient where the insured

substantially complied with section 624.155’s requirements. Pin-Pon Corp.,

500 F. Supp. 3d at 1345; Fox, 2017 WL 1541294, at *3. Relying on QBE

Insurance Corp. v. Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Ass’n, 94 So. 3d 541

(Fla. 2012), both courts adopted a “substantial compliance” test, and in both

cases concluded that because the insured’s CRN substantially complied with

section 624.155’s requirements, the CRNs were sufficient. Pin-Pon Corp.,

500 F. Supp. 3d at 1345; Fox, 2017 WL 1541294, at *3.

     This is problematic because the courts in Pin-Pon and Fox

transplanted the substantial compliance test from substantively different soil

that is inapplicable here. In Chalfonte, the case relied upon in Pin-Pon and

Fox, the Florida Supreme Court considered whether the language and type-

size requirements established by section 627.701(4)(a), Florida Statutes

(2009), rendered a noncompliant hurricane deductible provision in an

                                     10
insurance policy void and unenforceable. 94 So. 3d at 552–54. The legal

principle the court considered was one of remedy. So, in analyzing the issue,

the court questioned whether courts could supply a remedy for violation of a

statute (i.e. declaring a policy void) where the legislature did not. Ultimately,

the court deferred to legislative prerogative, finding dispositive the fact that

the legislature had provided no such penalty. As a result, the court concluded

noncompliance did not render the contract void. Id. at 554.

      In analyzing the effect of failing to comply with the requirements of

section 624.155, the issue also becomes one of legislative prerogative.

Section 624.155 creates a statutory condition precedent to bring a cause of

action. § 624.155(3)(a), Fla. Stat. And courts have found noncompliance with

statutory (as opposed to contractual) conditions precedent excusable only

when there are specific statutory exceptions which permit such a

consideration. See, e.g., Stresscon v. Madiedo, 581 So. 2d 158, 160 (Fla.

1991) (“The fact that no prejudice has been nor can be shown is not the

determining factor in this case; nor is it significant that Stresscon

substantially complied with the mechanics’ lien law. The courts have

permitted substantial compliance or adverse effect to be considered in

determining the validity of a lien when there are specific statutory exceptions

which permit their consideration.”); Lamberti v. Mesa, 29 So. 3d 446, 450

                                       11
(Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“While the doctrine of futility may excuse a party from

performing a condition precedent in a contract, that doctrine does not apply

to excuse a statutory condition precedent. To impose a common law doctrine

to eliminate a statutory condition precedent would be to rewrite the statute.”).

      In my view, the legislature created a clear specificity requirement in

section 624.155 and did not include an exception for substantial compliance.

Cf., e.g., § 713.06(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (“The notice may be in substantially the

following form . . . .”). So, similar to the reasoning in Chalfonte, because the

legislature did not choose to include a substantial compliance exception, this

court cannot apply one. For the same reason, I would reject the Demases’

argument that their claim should proceed because State Farm was not

prejudiced by any deficiencies. A prejudice exception is also a decision for

the legislature. See Stresscon, 581 So. 2d at 160.

      b. Legal Sufficiency of the Demases’ CRN

      Having provided my analytical framework, I now turn to the question of

whether the Demases’ CRN complied with the requirements of section

624.155. As this court’s opinion explains, the Demases’ CRN lists virtually

every statutory and policy provision available to them as insureds. And the

CRN does not refer to “specific policy language” at all, choosing to instead

                                      12
list the headings of various policy sections with a general reference to “all

policy provisions.”

      This “kitchen sink” approach does not satisfy the specificity

requirements of section 624.155. The design of section 624.155 would

crumble under the opposite conclusion. For example, the plain language of

section 624.155(3)(b) demonstrates that the required information is for the

purpose of providing “notice.” Section 624.155(3)(d) provides that the insurer

may cure after it “receives notice.” For either of these provisions to have

meaningful operative effect, the CRN must be, as the statute says, “specific.”

In other words, the substance of the CRN must be stated in a way that

enables the insurer to ascertain directly from the notice both the alleged

violation and the steps it must take to cure the violation. See Specific,

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed. 2011)

(explicitly set forth; definite; clear or detailed in communicating). A CRN

which simply regurgitates every statutory and policy provision fails to meet

this requirement. Thus, the trial court properly concluded the Demases’ CRN

was legally insufficient.

                                     13