Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Concourse Plaza A Condominium Ass’n, 22-13141, 11th Cir., Apr. 15, 2024

In this unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit was presented with the issue of whether Florida Statute § 627.70132 required the insured’s notice of a supplemental claim to its insurance carrier include an estimate of damages. In the underlying case, the insured filed a claim for Hurricane Irma damage. The carrier investigated the loss and determined it fell below the insured’s deductible. The insured responded just shy of three years after the date loss, disputing the carrier’s estimate. However, instead of providing a competing estimate, they merely advised they were performing their own damage assessment. The insured did not provide an estimate until seven months later, well past the three-year limitation for supplemental claims. The insured also demanded appraisal. The carrier filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment that the prior notice, with no competing estimate, was not a valid notice of a supplemental claim.

Both parties filed for summary judgment. The district court relied on Goldberg v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 302 So.3d 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), finding that the insured’s notice of supplemental claim required an estimate of claimed damage. The court noted there were two cases on point in Florida, Goldberg and Patios West One Condominium Association, Inc. v. American Coastal Insurance Co., 2024 WL 24782, (Fla. 3rd DCA Jan. 3, 2024). The court noted that Patios specifically rejected the requirement of an estimate of damages as required by the Goldberg court, reasoning that Florida Statute § 627.70132’s plain text did not contain any such requirement for a competing estimate and that the statute was not a “supplemental claim statute” but a “notice of supplemental claim statute,” only delineating a time period for notice of existence of a claim, not the precise amount of the claim. The court advised, since Patios arose from the Third District Court of Appeal and the instant case originated in the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, the court was bound by Patios, as Goldberg arose from the Fourth District Court of Appeal and conflicts with Patios. Therefore, the court reversed summary judgment in favor of the carrier and remanded for further proceedings.