Florida Fourth DCA Rules Insured Cannot Introduce Claims-Handling Evidence Without a Bad Faith Claim

By Zachary D. Sonenblum

In Universal v. Naze, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 4251 (Fla. 4th DCA June 4, 2025), Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the lower court erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial claims handling evidence—which denied the insurer its right to a fair trial—and reversed and remanded the case for a new trial.

The Insured made a water damage claim against his insurer, Universal, and Universal requested certain claim documentation from the Insured. Universal denied the claim and asserted as one of its defenses that the Insured failed to satisfy a condition precedent—the production of documents detailing the claim.

During the Insured’s counsel’s opening statement at trial, counsel told the jury that when the insurance company made the claim decision, that “they weren’t waiting for documents, they were just flailing around.” Universal’s counsel objected on the basis that the testimony is going into claims handling, and the trial court overruled the objection. The Insured’s counsel subsequently introduced testimony from its public adjuster stating that Universal “really dropped the ball on this one.” Universal’s counsel again objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion for mistrial, and Universal appealed to the 4th DCA.

The 4th DCA found argument that the insurer was “slow or incompetent in processing the claim” could have led the jury to decide the case “solely because the [insurer] did not ‘do a good job’ regardless of whether the incident fell within the policy exclusion.” In reaching this decision, the 4th DCA explained:

[T]his case is riddled with comments and evidence that went beyond disproving the insurer’s affirmative defense and ventured into claims handling. For example, the adjuster testified that the insurer “dropped the ball.” The insured’s counsel argued the insurer was just “flailing around,” gave the insured “crickets,” did not “take [the claim] seriously,” and made “no investigation.”

The trial court tried to distinguish this case from that of a bad faith case by saying it was about negligence and omission. Indeed, negligence and omission fall within the definition of “bad faith” or claims handling.

[…]

The insured could have relied on the insurer’s failure to ask for additional documents, thereby refuting the insurer’s affirmative defense without focusing on claims handling or implying the insurer unreasonably delayed in its handling of the claim or did a bad job adjusting the claim.

The insured did not include any allegations of poor claims handling in his complaint. The pretrial stipulations did not include allegations of poor claims handling. In short, the admitted evidence was irrelevant to the issues pled. By admitting this irrelevant evidence, the insured was able to paint the insurer in a bad light and suggest its bad faith in handling claim.

Since the trial court erred in admitting the irrelevant evidence, Florida’s Fourth DCA reversed and remanded the case for a new trial.