Florida Federal Court Holds Insurer Did Not Timely File Interpleader Under Section 624.155(6)
As part of Florida’s March 2023 tort and insurance reforms, the Florida legislature introduced a safe harbor for carriers to avoid bad faith liability in claims involving multiple third party claimants. The provision appears in Fla. Stat. 624.155(6) and states that if “two or more third-party claimants have competing claims arising out of a single occurrence, which in total may exceed the available policy limits,” an insurer is not liable in excess of the policy limits if, “within 90 days of receiving notice of competing claims in excess of the available policy limits,” the insurer does one of two things. The insurer may either file an interpleader action or, with the agreement of the third party claimants, the insurer may make the policy limits available for a binding arbitration with the third party claimants.
In an early case involving this newly enacted safe harbor statute, Great West Cas. Co. v. Meralla, No. No. 25-cv-20642, 2026 WL 322702 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2026), a Florida federal court considered what constitutes “notice of competing claims in excess of the policy limits.” There, the insurer, Great West Casualty Company (“Great West”) sought to avail itself of this safe harbor statute and interplead its $2 million combined primary and excess limits following an April 2024 auto accident. The accident resulted in the death of Sharon Ferguson and her minor son T.F., as well as severe injuries to Lawrencia Ferguson and her two minor children, who were passengers in Sharon’s car. The crash report indicated Sharon’s vehicle, “for unknown reasons, veered to the right,” causing it to collide with the insured vehicle. The crash report noted Sharon to have “other contributing action” at the time of the crash, while the insured driver was noted to have “no contributing action.”
The accident led to the filing of three lawsuits against Great West’s insureds. The estates of Sharon and T.F., respectively, filed lawsuits in June 2024, and Lawrencia, individually and on behalf of her two minor children, filed in January 2025. On September 5, 2024, after Sharon’s Estate and T.F.’s Estate filed their lawsuits, but before Lawrencia’s lawsuit, Great West sent a letter to its insureds warning them of the possibility of excess exposure. Specifically, the letter stated that “based on our investigation to date, it has become evident that the potential for an excess exposure does exist in this matter and the coverage provided by [Great West] may be insufficient for the claims that are being pursued in this matter;” that “the damages resulting from this loss may have a value in excess of the policy limits;” and that there was a “possibility of an excess judgment.”
On November 14, 2024, an attorney for T.F.’s estate contacted defense counsel for the insureds to discuss settlement. Great West maintained that this was its first notice that the claimants’ claims could exceed the policy limits. On January 20, 2025, T.F.’s estate sent a policy limits demand. One week after that, Lawrencia sent a written demand for the policy limits.
On February 12, 2025, 90 days after the November 14, 2024 telephone conference, Great West filed its interpleader complaint. The interpleader complaint was filed in accordance with Section 624.155(6)(a), which states, in pertinent part:
(6) If two or more third-party claimants have competing claims arising out of a single occurrence, which in total may exceed the available policy limits of one or more of the insured parties who may be liable to the third-party claimants, an insurer is not liable beyond the available policy limits for failure to pay all or any portion of the available policy limits to one or more of the third-party claimants if, within 90 days after receiving notice of the competing claims in excess of the available policy limits . . .
(a) The insurer files an interpleader action under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. If the claims of the competing third-party claimants are found to be in excess of the policy limits, the third-party claimants are entitled to a prorated share of the policy limits as determined by the trier of fact. An insurer’s interpleader action does not alter or amend the insurer’s obligation to defend its insured.
The claimants filed various motions indicating that the relief sought under Section 624.155(6) was untimely, because Great West had communicated acknowledgement of excess exposure in the September 2024 letter, and the interpleader action was not filed until 160 days later. In response, Great West argued that it did not receive notice of competing claims within the meaning of Section 624.155(6) until January 2025, when it first received written demands for the policy limits, particularly because the allegations in the lawsuits were inconsistent with Great West’s investigation of the accident. Great West further argued that (1) theoretical exposure does not suffice as notice of competing claims in excess of available policy limits; (2) Great West had not received sufficient evidence to support the amounts demanded; (3) the letter fulfilled the insurer’s obligation to warn of the possibility of an excess judgment and, as such, was not an admission that it received notice of competing claims within the meaning of Section 624.155(6); and (4) it would be inequitable to use a confidential advisory letter drafted in furtherance of the insurer’s good faith duties as the trigger for statutory deadlines under Section 624.155(6).
Great West argued that the September 2024 letter could not trigger the 90-day deadline because it merely warns of potential excess exposure and Great West’s investigation revealed that Sharon was at fault, thereby relieving its insureds of liability. The court rejected this argument, explaining that such an interpretation would mean that the 90-day deadline is only triggered when the insurer receives notice of competing claims that clearly or likely are in excess of the available policy limits. The statute provides that “[i]f two or more third-party claimants have competing claims arising out of a single occurrence, which in total may exceed the available policy limits . . . an insurer is not liable beyond the available policy limits … if, within 90 days after receiving notice of the competing claims in excess of the available policy limits … the insurer files an interpleader action.” (Emphasis added).”
The court explained that the purpose of the letter, which was in furtherance of its good faith duty to advise its insured of potential exposure, is immaterial, because the issue is notice. The court found that the September 2024 letter demonstrated that Great West was on notice, at least as of the date of the letter, and indicated that an investigation had been conducted before issuing the letter. The court also noted that the September 2024 letter merely started the clock on the 90 days, which would have allowed the insurer to continue its investigation before deciding whether to file the interpleader action, as long as that were to occur within three months.
Thus, because the court found that Great West was on notice of the competing claims as of September 2024, Great West’s interpleader action, filed in February 2025, was untimely.
This case is significant as it is one of the first decisions interpreting the newly enacted reforms. While the reforms to Section 624.155 provide insurers with added protections from bad faith setups, there are still tight deadlines that an insurer must meet. Insurers must also consider the interplay between their existing claim handling procedures and their ability to avail themselves of the protections.