Jurisdiction: Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Case No.: 2D2024-0464
Lower Tribunal Case No.: (Pasco County)
Date: December 3, 2025
Lower Court Judge: Hon. Declan P. Mansfield
Chad and Monique Frisco prevailed on appeal after the Second District reversed a summary judgment entered in favor of State Farm Florida Insurance Company in a bad faith action.
The trial court ruled that the Friscos’ civil remedy notice (CRN) was “legally deficient” because it demanded extracontractual damages specifically attorney’s fees and costs allegedly violating the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
But the Second District held that State Farm waived this defense by failing to raise it at any point during the claim process, in its CRN response, or at any time during four years of litigation waiting until a late summary judgment motion to assert the argument.
Because State Farm waived the only defense on which the trial court relied, the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Background
The Friscos’ Pasco County home suffered water intrusion in 2018 after a contractor left the roof exposed. State Farm:
- Accepted the claim
- Paid $10,759.47
- Advised the insureds to hire a general contractor
- Later denied additional coverage relating to workmanship and mold
- Allegedly stopped communicating and failed to defend against a construction lien
The Friscos submitted their contractor’s Xactimate estimate, but State Farm allegedly never responded. A lien was later filed, and the Friscos filed a CRN accusing State Farm of bad faith practices delay, unfair trade practices, non responsiveness, and failure to defend the lien.
They then sued for breach of contract. State Farm demanded appraisal. After a delayed process attributed to State Farm, the insurer paid the appraisal award in January 2020.
The Friscos then filed their bad-faith action in 2020.
The Civil Remedy Notice (CRN)
The CRN alleged violations of:
- § 624.155 – Bad faith
- § 626.9541 – Unfair trade practices
It asserted State Farm:
- Failed to act promptly
- Failed to communicate
- Failed to provide a certified copy of the policy
- Failed to defend against the lien
- Made an unsatisfactory settlement offer
State Farm responded to the CRN in March 2019:
- Denying all allegations
- Claiming good faith
- Making no mention of any defect in the CRN
- Making no objection to the demand for attorney’s fees and costs
This silence created the foundation for waiver.
Trial Court Ruling
Years later, in renewed summary judgment, State Farm argued:
- The CRN was “legally deficient”
- Because it demanded extracontractual damages (fees + costs)
- And under Talat, an insurer cannot be required to pay such amounts during the cure period
The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment for State Farm.
Appellate Analysis
1. Waiver Controls the Outcome
The Second District held:
“It is well settled that an insurer that responds to the merits of an insured’s CRN without raising defects in the notice waives the right to make any such objection later.”
Citing cases such as:
- Vachon v. Travelers
- Neal v. GEICO
- Bailey v. People’s Trust
- Bay v. USAA
The court emphasized that State Farm:
- Responded to the CRN on the merits
- Ignored any alleged defect
- Waited four years before raising the issue
Therefore, the insurer waived the argument that the CRN was defective for demanding attorney’s fees.
2. Talat Does Not Invalidate the CRN
The court explained:
- Talat addresses what an insurer must pay to “cure” a CRN not what a consumer must include in a CRN.
- Whether a demand is meritorious or recoverable has no bearing on whether the insured has satisfied the statutory condition precedent.
Thus:
- A CRN is not rendered invalid simply because it contains a non meritorious demand.
- The statute requires specificity, but not legal correctness.
This interpretation aligns with the consumer-focused protections discussed in internal Boltz Legal articles like:
- Florida’s Insurance Crisis: Hidden Profits Amid Rising Premiums
- Navigating the Storm: Protecting Homeowners from Insurance Malpractices in Florida
3. State Farm’s Other Tipsy Coachman Arguments Fail
State Farm argued the CRN also lacked:
- Sufficient factual specificity
- Sufficient policy language specificity
The appellate court rejected the first argument but partially accepted the second:
- The CRN referenced the “Loss Payment” and “Loss Settlement” provisions generally, but not specific policy language as required by statute.
- However, that omission only affects certain claims not all.
Thus, the CRN may still be valid for any bad faith violations not dependent on policy language, such as:
- Failure to communicate
- Failure to act promptly
- Unfair trade practices
This mirrors guidance in:
Florida Homeowners Insurance Crisis Analysis
Court’s Conclusion
The Second District held:
- State Farm waived the only defense on which summary judgment was based.
- Talat does not invalidate a CRN simply because it includes demands for attorney’s fees.
- The case is reversed and remanded.
On remand, State Farm may still attempt to challenge any CRN related claims that require specific policy language, but the bad faith lawsuit as a whole survives.
Practical Takeaways
For Homeowners
- You can still file a CRN even without the policy in hand.
- Insurers must raise CRN defects immediately or waive them.
- Bad-faith claims focus on conduct, not whether appraisal was paid.
See:
For Insurers
- Responding to a CRN without objecting to defects constitutes waiver.
- Talat cannot be used to invalidate a CRN.
- Appraisal does not immunize an insurer from bad faith exposure.
Why This Case Matters
This opinion strengthens Florida’s consumer protection framework by ensuring insurers cannot:
- Ignore defects they could have raised
- Wait years into litigation
- Then weaponize those defects to avoid accountability
The CRN system is intended to promote early resolution, not create procedural traps for homeowners.
This aligns with themes in:
Executive Excess vs. Consumer Complaints: Florida Home Insurance
Today’s Insight
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”