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.
