Plaintiff Entitled to Know All Insurance Available to Defendants
Post 4795
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gj9GfkNK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gBzhkxnV and at https://lnkd.in/gyWVW89G, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Pedro Fundora filed suit against Robert Dangond and Maria Guevara after sustaining injuries when Dangond struck Fundora with a vehicle owned by Guevara. On appeal, Fundora argued that the trial court erred by granting Robert Dangond and Maria Guevara's Motion to Enforce a Settlement Agreement.
In Pedro Fundora, etc. v. Roberto Dangond, No. 3D22-1749, Florida Court of Appeals, Third District (May 1, 2024) the plaintiffs sought to rescind a settlement agreement because the defendant's insurer did not tell Plaintiff's counsel about all insurance available to the Defendants.
FACTS
During litigation, Fundora sent Dangond and Guevara's insurer, Progressive Insurance Company, a demand letter pursuant to section 627.4137(1), Florida Statutes (2011), which provides that:
an 'insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of a claim which might be made shall provide . . . a statement . . . setting forth [the information specified in this statute] with regard to each known policy of insurance ....' (Emphasis supplied).
In response, Progressive sent Fundora a letter disclosing only one policy, held by Dangond. Included in the disclosure was a statement "certify[ing] . . . that the contents of this disclosure made pursuant to Florida Statute 627.4137 are true and correct." Progressive did not disclose any other policies.
When Fundora later offered to settle with Dangond and Guevara, for limits based on the disclosures from Progressive, Fundora sent Progressive a demand letter, again requesting disclosure of information on additional known policies, and making the settlement offer contingent on verification that Progressive knew of no other policies. Two weeks later, Progressive sent Fundora's counsel a letter accepting the settlement offer. Progressive responded to the disclosure demand by attaching affidavits from Dangond and Guevara stating that there was no additional coverage.
On the same day that Progressive sent the letter accepting Fundora's settlement offer, it also sent a separate letter to Fundora disclosing an additional insurance policy held by Dangond and Guevara's codefendant, Dangond Construction, that potentially could provide coverage for the accident. Because Progressive disclosed this policy after accepting the settlement offer, Fundora did not have the benefit of reviewing the additional policy prior to offering to settle.
ANALYSIS
Fundora's request to Progressive for information on any known policies pursuant to section 627.4137(1) was an essential term of Fundora's offer to settle with which Progressive failed to comply. The Court of Appeals concluded that a settlement offer is unenforceable because, despite multiple demands pursuant to section 627.4137 and clearly establishing that compliance was a necessary and essential element of any settlement acceptance, Fundora was deceived.
Since the defendant's insurer did not provide the information until after one response and the acceptance of the settlement offer, the insurer's failure to provide the disclosure in accordance with section 627.4137 rendered the settlement unenforceable because the plaintiff made it clear that the insurance disclosure was an essential term and because the insurance disclosure is an essential term under case law.
The Court of Appeals agreed with Fundora that the settlement was unenforceable it reversed.
ZALMA OPINION
One of the greatest incentive for a plaintiff to accept a settlement offer from a defendant is the amount of insurance available when the defendant seems to be judgment proof. When an insurer violates the statute and fails to disclose that there is more insurance, the settlement agreement was made based on false information and it was unconscionable to accept a settlement offer based on a fraudulent statement of available insurance.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Subscribe to substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe; go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk and https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
