Background
Joshua Fonollosa and other appellants appealed rulings entered in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in litigation against American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida. The Third District’s brief per curiam opinion does not recount the underlying loss, the allegations, or the detailed procedural history.
The authorities cited by the court concern the statutory specificity requirements for insurance civil remedy notices, reconsideration arguments not presented initially, the requirement to obtain leave before asserting punitive damages, and whether an order is final when nothing remains to be done.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed without a written factual analysis. It cited section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2020), which requires a civil remedy notice to state specified information with specificity, including the allegedly violated statutory language, the circumstances giving rise to the violation, and relevant policy language.
The court also cited decisions affirming the dismissal of statutory bad-faith claims for deficient notices, including a decision finding noncompliance even under a substantial-compliance test. Its additional citations address denial of rehearing or reconsideration based on arguments that could have been raised earlier, the need for judicial leave before pleading punitive damages, and finality when no judicial work remains. The opinion does not identify the appellants’ particular notice defects or expressly choose between strict and substantial compliance.
Key Takeaways
- The Third District affirmed the circuit court’s disposition in favor of American Integrity.
- The citation-only opinion relies on authorities requiring statutory civil remedy notices to provide specified information with specificity, but it does not describe the notice at issue or enumerate its defects.
- The court’s citations also implicate preservation on reconsideration, authorization to plead punitive damages, and appellate finality, although the opinion supplies no separate analysis of those issues.
Why It Matters
The decision highlights the importance of preparing insurance civil remedy notices that address section 624.155’s statutory requirements with specificity. Because the opinion contains only an affirmance and supporting citations, however, it offers limited guidance about how those requirements applied to the particular notice in this case.
The opinion likewise signals the relevance of timely presenting arguments, obtaining leave before asserting punitive damages, and confirming that an appealed order is final, without elaborating on the underlying procedural facts.