Florida Insurance Changes Hit with Second Lawsuit
Insurers in recent years have blamed roof-damage claims for playing a key role in driving up costs. Lawmakers made a change related to the Florida Building Code that could lead to insurers repairing more roofs instead of needing to replace them, according to a Senate staff analysis.
June 03, 2022 at 10:16 AM
4 minute read
A contractors group and an Orlando-area roofing firm Thursday challenged the constitutionality of a new law that combines a property-insurance change with efforts to bolster the safety of condominium buildings.
The lawsuit, filed in Leon County circuit court, came after a separate challenge was filed Tuesday against another bill that the Legislature passed last week during a special session called to address problems in the property-insurance system.
In Thursday's case, the Restoration Association of Florida and Florida Premier Roofing LLC are targeting a bill (SB 4-D) that, in part, changed a state law about roof damage. But the highest-profile part of the bill placed new requirements on condominium buildings and associations after the deadly collapse last year of the Champlain Towers South building in Surfside.
The lawsuit challenges the roofing change but also contends that the overall bill is unconstitutional because it ties together "voluminous distinct subjects." The plaintiffs contend it violates a constitutional requirement that laws deal with single subjects.
"By way of example, but not limitation, the establishment of mandatory structural inspections for condominium and cooperative buildings lacks any cogent connection to regulating roofing contractors and repairing and/or replacing roofing systems in residential homes," the lawsuit said.
Gov. Ron DeSantis called the special session to try to bolster a troubled property-insurance market that has led to homeowners losing coverage and seeing large premium increases. Lawmakers passed two bills (SB 2-D and SB 4-D), which were quickly signed by DeSantis.
The condominium issue was added to SB 4-D during the special session after the House and Senate earlier this year could not reach agreement on a plan for trying to prevent future building collapses. Among other things, the new law sets requirements for inspections and condominium associations having adequate reserves to make repairs.
Lawmakers unanimously passed the measure.
In addition to alleging a violation of what is known as the constitutional "single-subject rule," the lawsuit filed Thursday also contends that the roofing change is unconstitutional.
Insurers in recent years have blamed roof-damage claims for playing a key role in driving up costs. Lawmakers made a change related to the Florida Building Code that could lead to insurers repairing more roofs instead of needing to replace them, according to a Senate staff analysis.
"Put simply, the insurance industry wanted, and the Florida Legislature enacted, legislation aimed to significantly increase roof repairs after property loss and substantially decrease the number of total roof replacements when, in reality, they are vital to preserving a home after severe weather events such as hurricanes occur," the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit alleges, in part, that the measure violates due-process rights because it conflicts with another state law that requires roofing materials to match in quality, color and size when repairs are made.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote that "many homeowners prefer to replace damaged roofs when significant issues arise after a severe weather event. Yet, their insurance companies — corporations that reap the benefits of policy premiums — prefer to pay less and make repairs, exposing the homeowner to further issues in the future. The new statutory framework permits insurance companies to repair roofing systems without adhering to the (roof-material) matching statute in violation of Florida law."
The Restoration Association of Florida, which lobbies on insurance issues, also is a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed Tuesday in Leon County circuit court. Along with Air Quality Assessors, LLC, an Orlando firm that does work such as mold testing and leak detection, the association is challenging part of SB 2-D that put a new restriction on attorney fees in lawsuits against insurance companies.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBack-To-Back Hurricanes' Impact on Florida Legal Work Will Go Beyond Usual Suspects
5 minute readHolland & Knight Snags 2 Insurance Partners in New York and Philadelphia From Goodwin
3 minute readHurricane Helene Likely To Roil Florida's Already Imperiled Insurance Market
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250