A recurring issue in insurance-broker malpractice litigation is determining when a negligence claim against a broker becomes ripe. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal recently addressed this question in Bullington Ins. Group, LLC v. Gordon. The court held that the claim does not accrue while a related coverage dispute with the insurer is still pending. 427 So. 3d 632 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2026).

In Bullington Ins. Group, LLC, plaintiff Earl Gordon was working as a driver when he was involved in an automobile accident. Id. at 633. SMJP was Gordon’s employer, and Ascendant Commercial Insurance provided vehicle insurance to them with Bullington acting as the broker. Id. Gordon advised of his employment status with SMJP after the wreck, and Bullington emailed Ascendant and asked that Gordon be added to the policy. Id. While Ascendant sent confirmation to Bullington that Gordon was added to the policy, he was not listed on the policy at the time of the automobile accident. Id.

Both Earl and his employer were sued for damages because of the accident, but neither party appeared in the case, and a default judgment was entered against them. Id. at 633. Accordingly, Gordon filed an amended complaint against Bullington for negligence and Ascendant for breach of contract and reformation of the policy. Id. Bullington moved to dismiss the negligence claim against him, arguing that Gordon could not bring the negligence claim until the coverage dispute with Ascendant was concluded. Id.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and Bullington sought certiorari review of the order. Id. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the trial court’s order, applying its 2014 decision in Wells Fargo Ins. Services USA, Inc. v. Blackshear, ruling that the negligence claim against the broker was entirely dependent on the finding that the policy did not cover Gordon’s automobile accident. Id. at 634; 136 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014). This is because the claim against Bullington would fail as a matter of law if coverage was established for Earl. Id. at 634. Because both the breach of contract and reformation claims against Ascendant remained pending, the negligence count against Bullington was not ripe. Id.

Accordingly, the court addressed the proper remedy for this ruling. Gordon sought abatement, but the court rejected this argument and distinguished rulings that plaintiff cited – ruling that these cases only showed abatement as proper in the bad faith context. Id. In this case, the insurer and broker are two separate defendants, and the court ruled that dismissal without prejudice is the proper remedy for this claim. Id.

This decision reinforces the correct timing in which negligence claims can be brought in insurance-related litigation involving brokers. When a plaintiff brings a claim against both the carrier and its broker, and the broker’s alleged negligence depends on the resolution of a coverage dispute with the insurer, depending on the circumstances, counsel for the broker should consider moving to dismiss the negligence claim as premature.