As a nationally recognized insurance dispute and property damage trial law firm, we are known for securing record-breaking results for our clients.  Nevertheless,  the coronavirus crisis continues to impact Florida courts.  Most courts have not been allowed to move forward in their plans to reopen for in-person trials due to a rise in COVID-19 cases and more contagious strains of the virus.

Recently, some criminal trials have begun to take place but criminal cases take priority over civil lawsuits.  In fact, the Florida court system has asked civil trial judges to step in to assist with the backlog of criminal trials.  As a result, many civil cases must wait until courts have cleared the logjam of criminal cases.

Corless Barfield Trial Group is proud to participate in Florida’s first federal civil jury trial to take place entirely via Zoom in a case styled Cheryl Staple v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company.  However, trials in the era of COVID are the exception rather than the rule. 

Judges state they do not expect civil trials to start back up in earnest until June 2021 at the earliest.  Courts are adapting their operations to establish a new normal, which includes very limited in-person hearings and remote jury trials.  As such, patience and perseverance must be practiced. 

If you have an insurance dispute or property damage claim, you should speak with a lawyer.  Any delay in seeking representation can lead to a loss of evidence and fewer opportunities to successfully resolve your claim.  If you are engaged in a dispute over the following, call 813-258-4998:

• Sinkhole Damage
• Flood Damage
• Fire Damage
• Wind Damage
• Hurricane/Storm Damage
• Life Insurance
• Construction Defects
• Mold Damage

Our goal is for your case to move forward in a timely manner.  Please be assured that we have a plan in place and that our firm will always work hard to ensure success.  We will make every effort to exceed client expectations during the coronavirus crisis. 

Above all, be safe and take care of yourselves and your families.  If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our office. 

In 2010 my firm assumed representation of Kathy Johnson, an insured in Ocala with horrific damage to her home. Her claim was denied by Tower Hill (also named Omega Insurance). We hired another engineering firm who did more testing and found clear evidence of sinkhole activity. We moved forward with a lawsuit and shortly after being sued Tower Hill agreed to accept coverage and rescind its denial.

Kathy Johnson signed a contract to begin repairing her home. We argued in front of the trial court judge that Tower Hill should bear the burden of paying Johnson’s attorney fees under the existing law. The judge in Ocala agreed exactly with our position and granted those fees. Tower Hill decided to appeal the decision to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. That court reversed the trial court and opined that Johnson is not entitled to fees because she didn’t prove that Tower Hill acted “wrongfully” when  it denied her claim and therefore did not deserve to be punished. We appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court who agreed to hear the case. Probably less than 5% of cases appealed to the Supreme Court are actually heard.

The Supreme Court issued a 31-page opinion today finding in Johnson’s favor and re-affirming her entitlement to attorney fees paid by her insurance company. The Supreme Court wrote that incorrectly denying a homeowners claim is what triggers the insurance company to pay fees. We do not need to go so far as to evaluate whether the insurance company was acting in bad faith. The Supreme Court expressed the importance of this law here in Florida and how an insured could not be expected to single-handedly take on a large insurance company by herself. They also expressed how a homeowner needs an expert lawyer and engineer to challenge the insurance company and both cost money.

The Supreme Court noted how Johnson, thorough our firm, did not present some frivolous claim but presented “cold hard facts” to support that Tower Hill was wrong in denying her claim. The Court pointed out that Johnson did the right thing in how proceeded with her claim and that it refused to punish her by making her foot the bill for her legal fees. Johnson v. Omega is a huge victory not just for our firm and Kathy Johnson but all insureds throughout Florida. Local judges were letting insurance companies get away with too much and the Supreme Court recognized that and wrangled them all back in. Click here for a copy of the Florida Supreme Court Decision.

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case of Johnson v. Omega Insurance regarding a property insurance claim. Kathy Johnson came to our firm with a denied sinkhole claim. Despite severe damage to the building itself, the insurance company claimed that the damage was not covered under the policy and sinkhole activity was not discovered. We identified that certain tests were deficient and hired another engineering firm to do additional testing. After that testing, clear evidence of a sinkhole problem was identified and a lawsuit was filed against Omega to fight the denied sinkhole claim.

After the lawsuit was filed, Omega conceded that in fact there was sinkhole activity present that was not previously identified during their investigation and Ms. Johnson was able to get her home repaired at a cost of more than $300,000.

The appeals court

Our firm went to the trial judge in Ocala, Florida. and asked that he require Omega to pay our attorney fees and costs on behalf of Ms. Johnson. The trial judge agreed that it was fair and reasonable to do so. Omega filed an appeal. The appeal was heard by the Fifth District Court of Appeals who disagreed with the trial judge in Ocala. The appeals Court argued that the law in Florida is that an insured must prove that the insurance company “wrongfully” refused to pay benefits and that the new sinkhole statutes actually protected the insurance companies from being found “wrong” as long as they did an investigation of some sort. In other words, the appeals Court seemed to be more concerned with the process of the investigation than whether the actual result was right or not.

Corless-Barfield’s position

Our position regarding Johnson v. Omega Insurance was different. The law of Florida, as cited by the Supreme Court in a 2000 case, is that an insurance company should pay attorney fees when its decision regarding the denied sinkhole claim was “incorrect” despite the rationale on why it was incorrect. After all, the insurance company holds all the power to do the investigation including who it hires to do it. We appealed this ruling on behalf of Ms. Johnson to the Florida Supreme Court who accepted the case. The acceptance of a case like this is extremely rare.

At the Supreme Court arguments, it was clear the Supreme Court Justices did not agree with Omega’s position and reiterated that incorrectly denying someone insurance benefits is the same as wrongfully denying them insurance benefits. Arguments were also made that the sinkhole statutes were not intended to act as a shield to later protect the insurance companies if their decision to deny insurance benefits was incorrect. The opinion may take months to be released but the consensus amongst those who watched the arguments was that the Supreme Court was going to reverse the Appeals Court decision which would be a huge win for Florida homeowners.

Find out more about the Johnson v. Omega Insurance case here, and how it ended here.