ReportWire

Tag: Claims

  • Fewer Citizens policyholders, yes, but will they have a better shot at winning a claims dispute?

    The number of property owners covered by the state’s insurer of last resort has dropped dramatically — but options for resolving disputes between Citizens Property Insurance Corp.’s and its customers over what’s owed when a claim occurs recently got a boost.

    The state-backed insurer expects to have slightly more than half a million policyholders by the end of the year. The policy roster has plunged 63% from the 1.4 million-policy peak in September 2023, when the state’s insurance market wobbled in the aftermath of 10 private insurers going insolvent between 2019 and 2023.

    That means that it’s less likely that all Florida insurance policyholders will be tapped to shore up Citizens in the event of a catastrophic hurricane, as happened after a conga line of storms pounded the state during the 2004 and 2005 seasons.

    But hidden in the bullish picture is a battle over an unresolved byproduct of Florida’s tort reform efforts this decade.

    Namely, how to create a healthy property insurance market and still provide a channel for customers to challenge claims settlements they feel do not reflect the cost of the damage they have suffered, either by a broken pipe or a hurricane. As Florida enters the most active portion of the 2025 hurricane season, it is no small controversy.

    And Citizens and its remaining 500,000-plus customers are only the latest to face this vexing, and potentially costly, challenge.

    How tort reform boosted insurance market, raised legal challenge issue

    Fears of a property insurance meltdown that could have paralyzed Florida’s real estate industry — and the potentially crushing liability that Citizens was carrying — spurred special legislative sessions to prevent a crisis.

    During those sessions in 2022 and 2023, specifically, lawmakers enacted judicial system changes they believed necessary to curtail excessive — and some even say fraudulent — lawsuits they and insurance industry voices said were taking a toll on the private market in addition to the state’s climatological and geographical vulnerability to hurricanes.

    Today, state officials say those reforms are doing the job. But lawyers and consumer advocates remain concerned that customers will ultimately get fleeced twice — first by still nation-leading pricey insurance premiums and then by claims checks that will leave them paying more than they should have to in repairing damage.

    The changes hobbled policyholders’ ability to sue over claims disputes with their insurer. That is because attorney fees are no longer automatically added to a settlement as they formerly were, decreasing attorney incentive to take the cases. It is especially the case when the disputed amount is on the smaller side but a big expense for a household: $10,000 or so.

    Years later, Citizens has depopulated — the term for shifting policies from its books to private insurers — to the tune of 1 million customers.

    A major reason this has been possible, the company, state officials and insurance industry representatives have said, is because the legal reforms have lured new private insurers into Florida. On Sept. 18, the Office of Insurance Regulation announced two new property insurers have stepped into the market — the 15th and 16th new insurers since the legal changes were made.

    “This is all great news,” Jeremy Pope, Citizens’ chief administrative officer, told a Citizens’ committee Sept. 17.

    But one of those legal changes that Citizens wanted — and sees as crucial in reducing its litigation costs — is facing its undoing.

    Part of the effort to tamp down costs

    In 2023, the Florida Legislature granted Citizens the right to send claims disputes to a special court run by the state Division of Administrative Hearings, often referred to as DOAH.

    There, judges, paid by salaries that Citizens funds, act as arbitrators in Citizens’ disputes. The insurer’s board of governors approved a $19.3 million contract with DOAH to pay the administrative costs of these claims hearings through 2027.

    In those proceedings, however, policyholders who get in front of the judge almost always lose — 90% of the policyholder claims against Citizens that reached the arbitration judge were denied, giving Citizens the right to legal fees from the claimant.

    Now, though, the procedure is on hold, as a Hillsborough County judge has found that a Hurricane Ian victim has a substantial chance of success on the merits of his case. The judge’s ruling found that the DOAH arbitration procedure should not go forward in the case of Martin Alvarez, or any other Citizens’ policyholder, because of the violation of constitutional rights it presents.

    Hurricane Ian did catastrophic damage in 2022. Now a dispute over a claim by an Ian victim may boost prospects for consumers challenging claims payments by Citizens Property Insurance Corp.

    Judge Melissa M. Polo issued an injunction against the administrative court hearings in these cases. The plaintiff’s attorney argues that this quasi-judicial procedure unfairly violates a policyholder’s right to a fair trial. More lawsuits seeking to void the arbitration have followed.

    Citizens, however, has appealed the injunction against the DOAH arbitration hearings and continues to refer cases to the administrative procedure since that Aug. 2 injunction. It plans to increase the number cases going to the arbitration hearings to 3,800 a year, according to public documents first reported by the Sun Sentinel and ProPublica.

    Faster, cheaper, but is it fair?

    The DOAH arbitration hearings allow disputes to be resolved much faster, said Michael Peltier, spokesperson for Citizens. It usually takes less than 90 days, compared to an average of two years in civil court, he said.

    “The DOAH process, which has been operating for 50 years, offers a fair and efficient venue for settling disputed claims and the statute that specifically authorizes Citizens to use DOAH is constitutional,” Peltier said. “For policyholders, the process allows disputed claims to be resolved in a matter of months instead of waiting nearly two years under the state court system.”

    The Hillsborough judge’s injunction, however, is seen as a victory by plaintiff attorneys who see Citizens’ 90% success rate in the administrative hearings as evidence of a deck stacked against the policyholder with a legitimate claim.

    More: Wind or water damage? Ian court cases show what policyholders face in challenging insurers

    “It’s shocking,” Harold Levy, founder and managing partner of HL Law Group in Fort Lauderdale, said of the one case he’s seen where a policyholder was able to get a favorable decision in the administrative court, compared to the number he’s seen withdrawn or settled.

    “When you look at it, practically speaking, you have a very, very advanced timeframe. Things have to happen very quickly,” Levy added. “You’re spending a lot of money up front and timeframes that are very onerous, and you’re going in front of judges who we feel are very strongly on the side of Citizens.”

    The chances and the odds

    About 1,500 Citizens’ policyholder cases have gone to the administrative procedure since the practice was started in 2024, as of a count dated July 2025. Citizens can invoke the procedure after the insurer receives notice of a policyholder’s intent to sue.

    Peltier says that 90% of that initial group sent to the administrative procedure settle before it gets to the judge. And 1-in-4 are settled for an average of $30,000, he said.

    “When we see evidence that supports a finding that the claim is covered, we give the policyholder the benefit of the doubt and pay the claim,” Peltier said. “I would argue that that is a major reason our success rate is so high when those last few cases make their way to final hearing.”

    Another 50% of the cases are settled by Citizens with a $250 to $300 payment. And another 11% of the cases have been withdrawn, Peltier said.

    In the Tampa case, however, paperwork from another administrative claim hearing illustrates the high stakes even when a jury trial is not involved. In one West Palm Beach case, a CItizens’ policyholder withdrew her claim on the hearing date. Still, the policyholder was ordered to pay Citizens’ court costs: $45,000.

    Arguments for injunction are due in the District Court of Appeal next month.

    Anne Geggis is the insurance reporter at The Palm Beach Post, part of the USA TODAY Florida Network. You can reach her at ageggis@gannett.com.Help support our journalism. Subscribe today

    This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Judge blocks Citizens dispute arbitration hearings critics call biased

    Source link

  • Conservative Network Newsmax Agrees To Pay $67 Million In Defamation Case Over Bogus 2020 Election Claims – KXL

    DENVER (AP) — The conservative network Newsmax will pay $67 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of defaming a voting equipment company by spreading lies about President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss, according to documents filed Monday.

    The settlement comes after Fox News Channel paid $787.5 million to settle a similar lawsuit in 2023 and Newsmax paid what court papers describe as $40 million to settle a libel lawsuit from a different voting machine manufacturer, Smartmatic, which also was a target of pro-Trump conspiracy theories on the network.

    Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had ruled earlier that Newsmax did indeed defame Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems by airing false information about the company and its equipment. But Davis left it to a jury to eventually decide whether that was done with malice, and, if so, how much Dominion deserved from Newsmax in damages. Newsmax and Dominion reached the settlement before the trial could take place.

    The settlement was disclosed by Newsmax in a new filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It said the deal was reached Friday.

    “Newsmax believed it was critically important for the American people to hear both sides of the election disputes that arose in 2020,” the company said in a statement. “We stand by our coverage as fair, balanced, and conducted within professional standards of journalism.”

    A spokesperson for Dominion said the company was pleased to have settled the lawsuit.

    The disclosure of the settlement came as Trump, who lost his 2020 reelection bid to Democrat Joe Biden, vowed in a social media post Monday to eliminate mail-in ballots and voting machines such as those supplied by Dominion and other companies. It was unclear how the Republican president could achieve that.

    The same judge also handled the Dominion-Fox News case and made a similar ruling that the network repeated numerous lies by Trump’s allies about his 2020 loss despite internal communications showing Fox officials knew the claims were bogus. At the time, Davis found it was “CRYSTAL clear” that none of the allegations was true.

    Internal correspondence from Newsmax officials likewise shows they knew the claims were baseless.

    “How long are we going to play along with election fraud?” Newsmax host Bob Sellers said two days after the 2020 election was called for Biden, according to internal documents revealed as part of the case.

    Newsmax took pride that it was not calling the election for Biden and, the internal documents show, saw a business opportunity in catering to viewers who believed Trump won. Private communications that surfaced as part of Dominion’s earlier defamation case against Fox News also revealed how the network’s business interests intersected with decisions it made related to coverage of Trump’s 2020 election claims.

    At Newsmax, employees repeatedly warned against false allegations from pro-Trump guests such as attorney Sidney Powell, according to documents in the lawsuit. In one text, even Newsmax owner Chris Ruddy, a Trump ally, said he found it “scary” that Trump was meeting with Powell.

    Dominion was at the heart of many of the wild claims aired by guests on Newsmax and elsewhere, who promoted a conspiracy theory involving deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to rig the machines for Biden. The network retracted some of the more bombastic allegations in December 2020.

    Though Trump has insisted his fraud claims are real, there’s no evidence they were, and the lawsuits in the Fox and Newsmax cases show how some of the president’s biggest supporters knew they were false at the time. Trump’s then-attorney general, William Barr, said there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

    Trump and his backers lost dozens of lawsuits alleging fraud, some before Trump-appointed judges. Numerous recountsreviews and audits of the election results, including some run by Republicans, turned up no signs of significant wrongdoing or error and affirmed Biden’s win.

    After returning to office, Trump pardoned those who tried to halt the transfer of power during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and directed his Department of Justice to investigate Chris Krebs, a former Trump cybersecurity appointee who had vouched for the security and accuracy of the 2020 election.

    As an initial trial date approached in the Dominion case earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order attacking the law firm that litigated it and the Fox case, Susman Godfrey. The order, part of a series targeting law firms Trump has tussled with, cited Susman Godfrey’s work on elections and said the government would not do business with any of its clients or permit any of its staff in federal buildings.

    A federal judge put that action on hold, saying the framers would view it as “a shocking abuse of power. ”

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Millions of Californians can claim cash from $27.5 million lawsuit settlement

    Millions of Californians can claim cash from $27.5 million lawsuit settlement

    Millions of Californians can claim cash from $27.5 million lawsuit settlement

    After a class-action suit brought by 2 Bay Area activists, Thomson Reuters agreed to pay up and make changes to its Clear product

    If you’ve lived in California at some point in the past seven years, you’ve got a shot at a very easy payday — and it’ll probably be enough cash to get a nice meal. Claims for another class-action privacy lawsuit are due Dec. 6.On Oct. 11, a San Francisco judge gave preliminary approval to a settlement that would see Thomson Reuters cough up $27.5 million, mostly to state residents. The deal caps off a legal battle that began in 2020: Two Alameda County activists sued the media giant over its Clear product, accusing the company of compiling millions of people’s personal data and putting it up for sale on the searchable database. “Thomson Reuters sells detailed dossiers on Californians across the state, people who have no idea their personal information is being appropriated, aggregated, and sold over the internet,” a complaint from 2022 said. The company markets its Clear product — not to be confused with the airport security tool — to companies, governments and law enforcement agencies. “Easily locate subjects,” one plan offers; another “displays a list of subjects’ relatives and associates.”In August, Thomson Reuters agreed to the plaintiffs’ settlement, which forced it to create the $27.5 million fund for Californians whose data it put up for sale. The company, which did not admit wrongdoing, also agreed to limit the data it keeps on state residents and to make that data easier to delete. So how do you get your cash? It took this reporter less than a minute to file a claim. The online portal simply requires your name, address and contact information — plus, you must swear you did indeed live in California during the claim period. It offers various payment methods and also has a page allowing Californians to opt out of the settlement’s terms. Californians have until Dec. 6 to file their claims, and a hearing to officially approve the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 13 — payouts won’t arrive before then. Only people whose information was put up for sale on Clear will receive money, per the settlement agreement, but plaintiff lawyer Andre Mura told SFGATE that everyone who meets the California residency requirement will fit that bill.Mura said the size of the payouts will depend on how many people make claims. His team estimates that between 400,000 and 1 million claims will be validated and that payouts will land approximately in the $19-$48 range. He noted that each claimant will receive the same amount.The math works that way because of the attorney’s fees; class counsel, on Friday, asked for $6.88 million plus almost $671,000 in reimbursements. The two lead plaintiffs, Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, are set to win $5,000 each, pending the judge’s approval.Thomson Reuters, which also owns and operates the Reuters news outlet, did not respond to SFGATE’s request for comment.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletterDo you have photos or video of an incident? If so, upload them to KCRA.com/upload. Be sure to include your name and additional details so we can give you proper credit online and on TV.

    If you’ve lived in California at some point in the past seven years, you’ve got a shot at a very easy payday — and it’ll probably be enough cash to get a nice meal. Claims for another class-action privacy lawsuit are due Dec. 6.

    On Oct. 11, a San Francisco judge gave preliminary approval to a settlement that would see Thomson Reuters cough up $27.5 million, mostly to state residents. The deal caps off a legal battle that began in 2020: Two Alameda County activists sued the media giant over its Clear product, accusing the company of compiling millions of people’s personal data and putting it up for sale on the searchable database.

    “Thomson Reuters sells detailed dossiers on Californians across the state, people who have no idea their personal information is being appropriated, aggregated, and sold over the internet,” a complaint from 2022 said. The company markets its Clear product — not to be confused with the airport security tool — to companies, governments and law enforcement agencies. “Easily locate subjects,” one plan offers; another “displays a list of subjects’ relatives and associates.”

    In August, Thomson Reuters agreed to the plaintiffs’ settlement, which forced it to create the $27.5 million fund for Californians whose data it put up for sale. The company, which did not admit wrongdoing, also agreed to limit the data it keeps on state residents and to make that data easier to delete.

    So how do you get your cash? It took this reporter less than a minute to file a claim. The online portal simply requires your name, address and contact information — plus, you must swear you did indeed live in California during the claim period. It offers various payment methods and also has a page allowing Californians to opt out of the settlement’s terms.

    Californians have until Dec. 6 to file their claims, and a hearing to officially approve the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 13 — payouts won’t arrive before then. Only people whose information was put up for sale on Clear will receive money, per the settlement agreement, but plaintiff lawyer Andre Mura told SFGATE that everyone who meets the California residency requirement will fit that bill.

    Mura said the size of the payouts will depend on how many people make claims. His team estimates that between 400,000 and 1 million claims will be validated and that payouts will land approximately in the $19-$48 range. He noted that each claimant will receive the same amount.

    The math works that way because of the attorney’s fees; class counsel, on Friday, asked for $6.88 million plus almost $671,000 in reimbursements. The two lead plaintiffs, Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, are set to win $5,000 each, pending the judge’s approval.

    Thomson Reuters, which also owns and operates the Reuters news outlet, did not respond to SFGATE’s request for comment.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter

    Do you have photos or video of an incident? If so, upload them to KCRA.com/upload. Be sure to include your name and additional details so we can give you proper credit online and on TV.

    Source link

  • Broward County Insurance Adjuster Arrested

    Broward County Insurance Adjuster Arrested

    A Broward County insurance adjuster was arrested for unlicensed public adjusting.

    Giorgio Giovanni Gonzalez allegedly secured public insurance adjuster contracts for adjusting, and appraisal services, without being licensed in the state of Florida, and then unlawfully withheld money belonging to two policyholders. Gonzalez defrauded the two policyholders out of $34,424.

    Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis recently announced the arrest of Giorgio Giovanni Gonzalez, owner of Maximum Claims Recovery, Inc., on two counts of felony charges of Unlicensed Public Adjusting.

    “When unlicensed public adjusters take advantage of the system, every policyholder in the state loses,” Florida CFO Jimmy Patronis said. “Insurance fraud drives up rates and devalues the professionalism of honest public adjusters and insurance agents. As Florida’s insurance market begins to improve little-by-little, we will continue to assure companies and policyholders that fraud will not be tolerated in our state. Kudos to my Criminal Investigations Division fraud detectives for doing the hard work to bring this fraudster to justice. Also, thanks to the Broward State Attorney’s Office for prosecuting this case and protecting the rights of Florida consumers.”

    “NAPIA believes in the ethical practice of public insurance adjusting and applauds all efforts of the Florida DFS to assure that only licensed public adjusters are allowed to assist consumers who have sustained first party property loss,” said Brian Goodman, General counsel to the National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (NAPIA).

    In September 2023 and December 2023, the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS), Criminal Investigations Division (CID) received complaints from policyholders based on concerns that Maximum Claims Recovery Inc, operated by Giorgio Giovanni Gonzalez, may have secured a public insurance adjuster contract, for adjusting and appraisal services, without being licensed in the state of Florida and for unlawfully withholding monies belonging to the two policyholders.

    According to supporting documents that were provided by the policyholders, Gonzalez represented himself as a licensed public adjuster to assist the policyholders with insurance claims related to home damage in 2022, in return for a 20% adjusting fee of the insurance settlements. The contract agreements from Maximum Claims Recovery, Inc. were executed and memorialized in writing by Gonzalez and the policyholders.

    As such, Evolution Risk Advisors issued a settlement check in the amount of $18,000 on behalf of Universal and Property Insurance that was payable to Maximum Claim Recovery. Catastrophe and National Claims (CNC) issued two settlement checks on behalf of State National Insurance Company, Inc. that were payable to Maximum Claim Recovery that totaled $26,903. In both instances, the checks totaling $44,903 were signed and deposited in a Chase bank account Maximum belonging to Claims Recovery, Inc.

    CID investigators gathered evidence to show the settlement checks totaling $44,903 were deposited into the Chase account. Although, Gonzalez received the settlement checks in a timely manner, he failed to remit the funds due to one of the policyholders from the Evolution Risk Advisors claim which totaled $18,000.

    He also provided a business check in the amount of $16,424 to the other insured on behalf of CNC which was deposited by the policyholder and was returned for non-sufficient funds. As a result of fraudulent, unethical, and dishonest acts within the insurance industry, Giorgio Giovanni Gonzalez received a total of $44,903 while acting as an unlicensed public adjuster and failed to remit to the policyholders approximately $34,424 of insurance claim money.

    CID Investigators reviewed records from the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS), Division of Agent & Agency Services (A&A) which showed Giorgio Giovanni Gonzalez licensed as an All Lines Public Adjuster suspended by the Chief Financial Officer for the state of Florida on April 25, 2013, for failing to maintain a surety bond.

    Furthermore, Gonzalez was also arrested on June 19, 2023, by CID detectives in Miami-Dade County for a similar act. In that case, Giorgio Giovanni Gonzalez was charged with one count of acting as a public adjuster and one count of grand theft.

    Giorgio Giovanni Gonzalez was arrested at the Broward County Main Jail without incident by CID detectives. The Broward State Attorney’s Office, who partnered in this investigation will handle prosecution. If convicted, Giorgio Giovanni Gonzalez could face up to 30 years in prison.

    Source link

  • US Weekly Jobless Claims Hit Highest Level Since August 2023, Though Job Market Is Still Hot – KXL

    US Weekly Jobless Claims Hit Highest Level Since August 2023, Though Job Market Is Still Hot – KXL

    (Associated Press) – The number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits jumped to its highest level in more than eight months last week in another sign that the labor market may be softening.

    The Labor Department reported Thursday that unemployment claims for the week ending May 4 rose by 22,000 to 231,000.

    Last week’s claims were the most since the final week of August 2023.

    In total, 1.79 million Americans were collecting jobless benefits during the week that ended April 27.

    That’s up 17,000 from the previous week.

    Weekly unemployment claims are considered a proxy for the number of U.S. layoffs in a given week.

    More about:

    Grant McHill

    Source link