Johnson v. Omega Ins. Co.

Opinion

 [*1208]  LEWIS, J.

This case is before the Court to review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Omega Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1911 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 5, 2014), which arose from a claim for insurance benefits by Kathy Johnson, the insured, submitted to Omega, her homeowner's insurance provider. The decision is in conflict with both Universal Insurance Co. of North America v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012), and Ivey v. Allstate Insurance Co., 774 So. 2d 679, 683-84 (Fla. 2000). In conflict with our decision in Warfel, the court below improperly applied a presumption of correctness that is limited to an initial process for an investigative report during the litigation proceedings. In conflict with Ivey, the district court incorrectly interpreted section 627.428, Florida Statutes, which provides for an award of attorney's fees when [**2]  an insured recovers benefits from an insurer. Therefore, the two issues we address today are  [*1209]  (1) consideration of whether the statutory presumption of correctness afforded to an insurer's internal report during the investigation process in the sinkhole statutes extends to later trial proceedings, and (2) whether an insured's recovery of attorney's fees under section 627.428, Florida Statutes, requires that there be bad faith on the part of an insurance company in the denial of a valid claim, or simply an incorrect denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We conclude that the decision below is in conflict with both Warfel and Ivey.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.