A new decision in a Florida case addresses many issues: Compliance with Florida's Insurance Disclosure Statute is only one of those issues in Download Hanson v. Maxfield (Fla. 1st DCA Opinion Filed October 30, 2009).
The Florida Statute involved is Section 627.4137. In the Hanson case, the injured claimant apparently attempted to condition a settlement offer on full compliance with all the insurance information disclosure requirements of the Florida Statute, among other things. In response, the Policyholder's Insurance Company's attorney (apparently not the Defense Attorney provided by the Liability Insurer, but instead a lawyer retained directly by the Defendants' Insurance Company, State Farm), represented among other things that the response constituted "full compliance with Florida Statutes, Section 627.4137." Download Hanson v. Maxfield (Fla. 1st DCA Opinion Filed October 30, 2009), attached Official Slipsheet Opinion at 7.
The First District Court of Appeal reversed a Final Judgment in favor of the injured claimant-Plaintiff and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In part here pertinent, the Florida Appellate Court reasoned, after examining the offer and the response to it, that in this case the record facts displayed "a settlement offer with specific terms and an unequivocal acceptance of the terms offered." Download Hanson v. Maxfield (Fla. 1st DCA Opinion Filed October 30, 2009), at 8-9.
Some of the features of Florida Statute Section 627.4137, the Insurance Information Disclosure Statute, are addressed by Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of insurer Bad Faith" ยงยง 4.08-4.11 (Second Edition Shepard's/McGraw-Hill; 2009 Supplement West Publishing Company).
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments