In Florida, a third-party bad-faith action may be pursued under the common law or the civil remedy statute, but a first-party bad-faith claim must be brought under the civil remedy statute. Macola v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 953 So. 2d 451, 457 (Fla. 2006). Some states, including Alabama, allow a claimant to file a bad-faith action against an insurer any time after the alleged bad faith has been committed. Florida, however, has strict prerequisites for filing a statutory bad-faith action against an insurer.

Florida Statute Section 624.155 codifies the prerequisites for pursuing certain civil remedies against an insurer, including remedies for bad faith. Subsection (3) requires a Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) to be filed with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“FDFS”) at least sixty days before a statutory bad-faith lawsuit is initiated against an insurer. Actual notice is not a substitute for the statutory notice requirements. Nowak v. Lexington Ins. Co., 464 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1252 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

The CRN must be made “on a form provided by the department” and, in addition to any other information the FDFS requires, must state with specificity the following:

1. The statutory provision and specific language of the statute the insurer allegedly violated;
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation;
3. The name of any individual involved in the violation;
4. Reference to specific policy language, if relevant to the violation, unless the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant and insurer has not provided a copy of the policy in response to a written request; and
5. A statement the notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy.

Florida courts also acknowledge an exception to the requirement that an insured refer to specific policy language when the insurer did not provide it in response to the insured’s request and as required under Florida law. Porcelli v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 635 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1319 (M.D. Fla. 2008). At least one Florida court has determined a policy number also is required for a CRN to comply with the statute because the FDFS form requests that information. See Mathurin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1311, 1318 (M.D. Fla. 2018). It stands to reason that any information requested on the FDFS form is presumptively required to comply with the CRN requirements.

Florida courts frequently address the issue of whether a CRN is sufficient under the civil remedy statute. Generally speaking, a CRN that implicates “virtually the entire policy” is insufficient. See Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 351 So. 3d 136, 137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022); see also Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 879 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021) (insufficient CRN cited “nearly all policy sections and cited thirty-five statutory provisions”). A CRN that identifies the wrong insurer also is insufficient. Lopez v. Geico Cas. Co., 968 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2013). A CRN is not sufficiently specific where it does not identify specific bonds or policies, does not explain the amount of damage allegedly caused by the insurer, and does not specify the action the insurer should take to cure the alleged violations. Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299–1300 (S.D. Fla. 2008), aff’d, 361 F. App’x 986 (11th Cir. 2010); but see Hunt v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 112 So. 3d 547, 551 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (CRN is not required to allege a specific cure amount).

The purpose of the CRN is to provide an insurer notice of the pending lawsuit and an opportunity to cure the alleged violations. Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003). To that end, Section 624.155(3) provides that no action ripens if the insurer cures the alleged violations within sixty days of the electronic filing of the CRN. See Harper v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 272 So. 3d 448, 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019). The statute of limitations is tolled for that period. The Florida Supreme Court has confirmed extracontractual damages under the civil remedy statute cannot be recovered (and the remedy itself does not ripen) if the insurer pays the contractual damages during the cure period. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1284 (Fla. 2000).

Under Section 624.155(3), a statutory or common-law bad-faith lawsuit involving liability insurance also will not ripen where the insurer tenders the lesser of the policy limits or the claimant’s demand within ninety days of receiving actual notice of the claim, including sufficient evidence of the amount. Again, the statute of limitation is tolled for that time.

If however, “an insurer fails to respond to a [CRN] within the sixty-day window, there is “a presumption of bad faith sufficient to shift the burden to the insurer to show why it did not respond.” Imhof v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 643 So. 2d 617, 619 (Fla. 1994). An insurer waives a claim of noncompliance with the CRN requirements if it fails to identify the specific defect in its response to a CRN. See Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336, 1347–48 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Bailey v. People’s Tr. Ins. Co., 392 So. 3d 123, 125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024), reh’g denied (Sept. 11, 2024). Just recently, the Second District Court of Appeal confirmed an insurer can waive the right to object to noncompliance, even when “the alleged deficiencies in a CRN are more than ‘technical.’” Vachon v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2025 WL 500291, at *2–3 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2025).

The requirements of Section 625.155 are “strictly construed.” Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008), aff’d, 361 F. App’x 986 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Talat Enterprises, 753 So. 2d at 1283). But, “a court may allow an action to proceed if the defect was of a purely technical nature, the party substantially complied, the notice purpose of the statute has been fulfilled, and the opposing party has not been prejudiced by the error.” Pin-Pon, 500 F. Supp. 3d at 1345 (citing QBE Ins. Corp. v. Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Ass’n, Inc., 94 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 2012)).

The Insurance Coverage Group at LGWM is available to address questions regarding bad-faith lawsuits in Florida and the requirements imposed by the civil remedy statute.