FOLLOW US

What Readers Should Know

• Florida’s Third DCA affirms trial court’s ruling against Progressive Express Insurance, spotlighting insurer obligations in complex, multi-party claims.
• Case leans on pivotal precedents—Harmon v. State Farm, Aldana v. Progressive, and Harvey v. GEICO—clarifying the duties and timelines insurers must follow to avoid bad faith.
• Industry experts say the ruling sends a fresh warning to insurers: delays and half-measures in global settlements won’t stand up in court.

By Samuel Lopez – USA Herald

MIAMI, FLORIDA — In a blow to insurance giant Progressive Express Insurance Company, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal has let stand a trial court’s rebuke of the carrier’s claims handling in a multi-party car crash case, fueling a new round of scrutiny over insurer conduct in the Sunshine State. The May 28, 2025, appellate decision not only upholds a lower court’s findings but also reinforces long-standing legal expectations for insurers navigating high-stakes, multi-claimant accidents.

The case, spearheaded by plaintiff Olivia Oney, drew a bright line around what the courts consider “reasonable and timely” behavior for insurers facing the pressure cooker of competing claims—all under the glare of Florida’s evolving bad faith jurisprudence.

The Per Curiam Affirmance: What It Means

In a succinct but powerful per curiam ruling (meaning, with no detailed written explanation), the appellate judges sided with the trial court’s findings against Progressive, sending an unmistakable signal to insurance professionals across Florida. While the decision offered no deep dive into the facts—leaving out dollar figures, dates, and policy language—it echoed the state’s hardening stance on insurer obligations in complicated claims environments.

The message? When a single accident gives rise to multiple potential payouts, insurance companies can’t drag their feet, cherry-pick settlements, or gamble on procedural tactics. They must move decisively, negotiate fairly, and above all, remember that the insured’s interests—not expediency or bottom-line calculations—take center stage.

Legal Landmarks: Harmon, Aldana, and Harvey

Even in its brevity, the Third DCA’s ruling anchors itself in several landmark decisions:

• Harmon v. State Farm:Affirms insurers’ right—and duty—to pursue reasonable, timely settlements when several claimants vie for limited policy funds. The point is to encourage prompt compromise and avoid costly, protracted litigation.
• Aldana v. Progressive American Insurance Co.:A particularly damning precedent for Progressive. In that federal case, the court found Progressive’s sluggishness in pursuing a global settlement—waiting more than four months post-crash—showed a troubling lack of urgency, contributing to a finding of bad faith.
• Harvey v. GEICO (Florida Supreme Court):Underscores that in bad faith cases, courts must scrutinize the insurer’s actions—not what the claimants did or didn’t do—when assessing whether the company fulfilled its legal duties.

Other key cases, including Farinas v. Florida Farm Bureau and Moultrop v. GEICO, make clear that the reasonableness of an insurer’s settlement strategy is often a fact-heavy question, sometimes best left for a jury to decide.