The Reform Act of Florida in a bad faith is not retrospectively, says Court of Appeal, says Court of Appeal

An appellate court in Florida has again confirmed a major decision by the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court of the state, which has contributed to answering persistent questions about whether the law on the reform of the 2022 evil legal disputes can be applied retrospectively.

The answer is “no”, Floridas 1^st The district court of the district said this week in Cindy VO against Scottsdale Insurance Co. because Florida Statut 624,1551, which was passed as part of the serious insurance law in 2022, had made a material change in the law.

The 2022 reforms aimed at eliminating a big thorn on the sides of the owners insurers: a frequent tactic that was used by the plaintiff's lawyers – which claimed the claim to bad belief, sometimes only because an assertion was rejected. This led to larger jury awards, settlements and extensive costs for insurers, many insurance lawyers and managers had complained for years.

The law of 2022 made it more difficult to say that insurers had acted in evil intentions by initially demanding a judicial determination of a violation of a contract against the insurance claim. “The difference between the ultimate estimate of an insurer and the assessment price of an insurer does not only arise in a legal form,” says the statute.

The lawyer of the pensacola house owner, the lawyer of the plaintiff, Chad Barr, had now known Scottsdale, now known as nationwide E&S insurance, for breach of contract and the evil intention after VOS had been rejected by VO 2020.

The lawyer of Scottsdale, Aleida Mielke, argued in court that the evil law of 2022 was naturally affected, and court hearings would have enabled the retroactive effect of remedial measures. The court in the district of Escambia voted and dismissed the lawsuit of VO against Scottsdale. VO had not said “a disadvantageous decision by a court that the owners insurer violated the insurance contract” or that “a final
The judgment or the decree was raised against the insurer. “

But the 1 in the appeal procedure^st DCA judge returned.

“We cannot agree that the statute has these remedial measures”, 1 “^st The judge of the district's Court of Appeal, Brad Thomas, wrote in the opinion of February 26. “But we do not have to agree that the law can be used retrospectively on this basis …” or pending cases.

The decision of the Supreme Court in 2010 as known as Menendez against Progressive Express InsuranceTogether with a judgment of 1994 ,, Arrow Air against WalshEssentially of the opinion that Beck and the court, if a new law eliminates a previously valid plague grass, cannot be retrospectively.

The Court of Appeal referred the VO case to the court with instructions to restore Scotttsdal's application for dismissal and reinstatement of VOS lawsuit. The appellate court's appeal can be seen here.

Topics
Florida claims