Florida’s Citizens Property facing class action over attorney fees

“Litigation expenditures increase mainly because insurance coverage providers frequently are unsuccessful to handle coverage claims, which necessitate litigation. We feel that at the time once more Citizens are misusing the regulation as published and that is why we have brought this course motion forward,” lawyer Michael Citron reported. (Credit score: Shutterstock)

Citizens Residence Coverage Corp. is facing litigation under a new regulation, Florida Statute 627.70152, which outlines the possibility of property owners recovering the two their insurance benefits and attorney charges and expenses.

The fit comes from Hollywood lawyers Michael Citron and Igor Hernandez of MAC Legal, whose shopper Shanique Baker submitted a putative course action on behalf of herself and other class members against defendant Citizens.

Baker alleged all residential and commercial property insurance customers who offered claims for coverage to Citizens just after July 1, 2021, experienced their promises paid out without lawyer charges.

Fort Lauderdale lawyer Eric M. Yesner of Shutts & Bowen, who represents Citizens Property Coverage Corp., did not answer to requests for remark.

Meanwhile, opposing counsel Citron claimed this is a new regulation that has been included into a significant element of his insurance coverage practice.

“The regulation governs each the responsibilities and duties of the two insureds and insurers, alike. Sadly, while our legislature and their constituents are often confident of invariable benefit inuring to the home owners, the laws becoming passed in Tallahassee at the behest of unscrupulous lobbyists are in truth time and time all over again to the homeowners’ detriment,” Citron said. “Litigation expenses rise mainly because insurance policies firms consistently fail to deal with insurance plan statements, which necessitate litigation. We believe that that the moment all over again Citizens [is] misusing the regulation as written, and that is why we have brought this class motion forward.”

Hernandez proposed the new regulation was meant to be a compromise below which an attorney could not sue the insurance coverage firm devoid of giving it observe.

“At the exact time, the insurance policies corporation would be also paying the lawyers so that the insured doesn’t put up with. If you’re going to drive each insured to go by this pre-suit course of action right before they are entitled to get paid out from their insurance plan business, and then you really do not compensate the law firm that is likely to be needed for that pre-go well with method, the insured … is heading to conclusion up having harm on each individual single assert, since the insured is likely to be pressured to fork out the law firm out of the money the insured was if not entitled to,” Hernandez said.

Broward County Circuit Judge Michele Towbin Singer is presiding over the situation.

On May well 8, 2021, plaintiff Baker’s residence was weakened. In accordance to the complaint, her insurance coverage coverage allegedly delivered coverage for Baker’s house from any direct physical reduction. As a outcome, the plaintiff retained the MAC Authorized regulation organization to assist with the prosecution of the declare.

The legislation agency allegedly proceeded to glimpse into the declare and engage in the pre-fit process required by Fla. Stat. 627.70152.

As the legislation company was processing the details, it sent defendant Citizens a expected statutory observe. Citizens then responded with a payment that precisely excluded realistic legal professional costs.

The charges ended up dependent on the defendant’s belief that the statute did not entitle insureds to fair lawyer service fees throughout the pre-match approach, the complaint said.

The plaintiff introduced a course action. She believes she is amid thousands of people afflicted considering that Citizens’ is the most significant insurer in Florida, the criticism stated.

Baker filed a a person-depend criticism for declaratory judgment towards the defendant.

Relevant: