USA – FLORIDA Trends and Developments Contributed by: John David Dickenson, Nicole Connors and Juan Garrido, Cozen O’Connor
The only case interpreting this provision is Great West Cas . Co . v Meralla , No 25-cv-20642, 2026 WL 322702 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2026), where a court con- sidered what constitutes “notice of competing claims in excess of the policy limits”. In Meralla , Great West issued a commercial lines policy and an excess policy to Mamo Transportation, which together provided lim- its of USD2 million. On 24 April 2024, a motor vehicle accident occurred involving Sharon Ferguson and Mamo Transporta- tion’s driver. Ms Ferguson and her minor son, T.F., died on the scene. The three backseat passengers, Lawrencia Ferguson and her two children, suffered serious injuries. The estate of Sharon Ferguson and T.F. filed lawsuits in June 2024. On 5 September 2024, Great West sent a letter to its insureds warning of the possibility of excess exposure. On January 2025, Lawrencia Ferguson, individually and on behalf of her children, filed their lawsuits. Great West’s September 2024 letter provided, in relevant part: “Mamo Transportation Inc. was involved in an acci- dent on April 24, 2024... The accident caused the deaths of two individuals… three other occupants of the claimant vehicle were also injured. The purpose of this letter is to advise you that based on our investiga- tion to date, it has become evident that the potential for an excess exposure does exist in this matter and the coverage provided by Great West… may be insuf- ficient for the claims that are being pursued in this matter. The damages resulting from this loss may have a value in excess of the policy limits of insurance... Based upon the potential damages and exposure pre- sented by this loss, this shall serve as notice to you of an excess exposure”. On 12 February 2025, Great West filed its complaint for interpleader pursuant to Section 624.155 (6). The estate of Sharon Ferguson argued the interpleader was time barred because Great West communicat- ed its own acknowledgment of excess exposure on 5 September 2024 and filed the interpleader action 160 days later. Great West argued that the Septem- ber 2024 letter could not trigger the 90-day deadline because it merely warns of potential excess exposure. Rather, Great West argued the 90-day deadline began
to run on 14 November 2024, when it received a spe- cific written demand from one of the claimants. The court rejected Great West’s argument because that would mean that the 90-day deadline is only trig- gered when the insurer receives notice of competing claims that clearly or likely are in excess of the avail- able policy limits. Citing the statute’s language, the court emphasised that the relevant issue is whether the carrier had notice of competing claims that in total may be in excess of the available policy limits. While Great West appealed the Meralla decision, the opinion is important for several reasons. First, it illustrates that a carrier’s correspondence and claim investigation can trigger the 90-day deadline to file the interpleader action if the carrier had notice of com- peting claims that may exceed the policy limits. Sec- ond, the evidentiary standard in 624.155 (6) is lower than 624.155 (4)(a), because the 90-day timeline to file the interpleader action does not require sufficient evidence demonstrating the competing claims may exceed policy limits. Lastly, on the issue of who is a competing claimant, Meralla concluded that it is irrel- evant whether one or any of the competing claimants ultimately succeeds in their suit. Beyond Bad Faith: Three Additional Developments To Watch Beyond the bad-faith reforms, three areas have gener- ated notable appellate activity in 2026: • the sequencing of insurance appraisal; • the shift to modified comparative fault; and • the changing standards governing punitive-damag- es claims. Although the governing rules are becoming clearer, important questions remain. Appraisal: A Settled Sequencing Rule and Its 2026 Aftermath The Florida Supreme Court laid the foundation in American Coastal Insurance Company v San Marco Villas Condominium Association , 379 So. 3d 1099 (Fla. 2024), resolving a conflict that had divided Florida’s District Courts of Appeal for more than a decade. The issue was whether a court must resolve an insurer’s
316 I NSURANCE L I T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook