Insurance Bad Faith Lawyer

Insurance companies collect premiums with a legal obligation attached: when a covered loss occurs, they must handle claims fairly, investigate thoroughly, and pay what is owed. When they don’t, that conduct has a name. Insurance bad faith is a legal cause of action that holds insurers accountable for unreasonably denying, delaying, or underpaying claims in violation of their duty to their policyholders. The Pendas Law Firm represents policyholders and accident victims across Florida, Washington State, and Puerto Rico who have been shortchanged, stonewalled, or misled by insurance carriers that placed their own financial interests above their legal obligations.

What Insurance Bad Faith Actually Means Under the Law

In Florida, Statute Section 624.155 is the primary vehicle through which policyholders can bring a civil remedy action against an insurer for bad faith conduct. The statute specifically defines actionable conduct to include not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, the insurer could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured. This is not a vague standard. Courts have interpreted it to impose real, enforceable obligations on insurance carriers, and violations can expose an insurer to damages that go well beyond the original policy limits.

There is an important procedural layer to understand here. Before filing a civil bad faith lawsuit under Section 624.155, The law requires that the policyholder first file a Civil Remedy Notice with the Florida Department of Financial Services. The insurer then has 60 days to cure the alleged violation. If the insurer fails to cure, the lawsuit can proceed. This 60-day window is not just a formality. It is a hard statutory requirement that must be followed precisely, and failure to comply can bar an otherwise valid claim entirely.

Washington State approaches bad faith through both the Insurance Fair Conduct Act and the Consumer Protection Act, and Washington courts have interpreted these statutes broadly to provide policyholders with meaningful remedies. Puerto Rico’s insurance code similarly imposes duties of good faith on carriers operating in the territory. Each jurisdiction creates its own procedural framework, and the firm’s multi-jurisdictional experience across all three regions means claims are handled with the specific statutory and regulatory requirements of each system in mind.

Common Carrier Conduct That Gives Rise to a Bad Faith Claim

Bad faith does not require proving that an insurance company acted with malice or deliberate intent to defraud. The standard is whether the insurer acted unreasonably in handling the claim. Unreasonable conduct takes many forms, and some of the most common patterns involve prolonged delays in acknowledging claims, requests for documentation that far exceed what is necessary to evaluate a loss, lowball settlement offers made without any supporting investigation, and outright denials issued without a legitimate coverage basis.

Third-party bad faith, which arises in the personal injury context, occurs when an insurer refuses to settle a claim against its insured within policy limits when it reasonably should have done so, exposing its own policyholder to an excess judgment. This is one of the most consequential forms of bad faith. A carrier that drags its feet on settling a legitimate injury claim, only for a jury to return a verdict that far exceeds policy limits, may be on the hook for that entire judgment. The practical impact on the underlying insured, who faces personal financial liability above the policy, is devastating, and the law provides a remedy for it.

An often-overlooked dimension of bad faith involves the insurer’s handling of uninsured motorist claims. When someone is injured by an uninsured or underinsured driver and turns to their own carrier for UM/UIM coverage, the carrier is not an adversary in the traditional sense. It is acting as the injured person’s own insurer. Courts have consistently held that insurers owe a heightened duty of good faith in this context, and stonewalling a UM claimant can give rise to both statutory and common law bad faith exposure.

What Damages Are Available in a Bad Faith Case

The damages recoverable in a successful bad faith action extend well beyond what the policyholder was originally owed under the policy. Under the applicable law, a prevailing bad faith claimant can recover the full amount of the judgment even if it exceeds policy limits, consequential damages caused by the insurer’s delay or denial, and attorney’s fees. The attorney’s fees provision is significant. It creates a genuine financial deterrent against abusive claims-handling practices, because carriers that lose bad faith cases face the prospect of paying the policyholder’s legal costs on top of everything else.

Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act allows plaintiffs to recover actual damages, litigation costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees, and in cases involving violations of the Consumer Protection Act, treble damages may be available. The potential for multiplied damages reflects the legislature’s intent to make bad faith litigation economically viable for policyholders who might otherwise be forced to accept inadequate settlements simply because the cost of litigation makes fighting back impractical.

One dimension that surprises many clients is the relationship between bad faith and emotional distress damages. Because insurance bad faith is a tort, not merely a contract dispute, damages for emotional distress and mental anguish caused by the carrier’s conduct are available in appropriate cases. courts across our jurisdictions have upheld these awards when the evidence supports them, recognizing that an insurer’s wrongful denial of a legitimate claim during a period of physical injury or financial hardship can cause real and measurable harm beyond the unpaid policy benefits.

How Bad Faith Claims Connect to Personal Injury Cases

The bad faith cause of action does not arise in isolation. It most often emerges from the wreckage of an underlying personal injury case that the insurer mishandled. After a serious car accident, truck crash, or other injury event, the at-fault party’s insurance carrier may enter the picture with lowball offers, months of silence, or outright denials of clearly covered claims. The Pendas Law Firm handles both the underlying personal injury claim and the bad faith action that follows when a carrier refuses to deal fairly.

Timing matters in a way that has direct legal consequences. Florida’s Civil Remedy Notice requirement means the process of building a bad faith claim must begin before the underlying case concludes in many circumstances. Waiting too long to document the carrier’s conduct, preserve communications, or file the necessary pre-suit notice can strip away the right to pursue bad faith damages entirely. This is one reason why engaging experienced legal counsel early in the claims process, rather than after a carrier has already made its final decision, can fundamentally change the outcome of a case.

Answers to Common Questions About Insurance Bad Faith Claims

How do I know if my insurer has actually acted in bad faith, or just made a decision I disagree with?

The line between a coverage dispute and actionable bad faith runs through the word “reasonableness.” A carrier that denies a claim based on a legitimate coverage question is not necessarily acting in bad faith, even if the denial turns out to be wrong. Bad faith requires that the carrier’s conduct be unreasonable under the circumstances. Evidence of bad faith often includes documented delays without explanation, internal communications showing the carrier prioritized cost savings over fair evaluation, refusal to conduct a proper investigation, or offers that have no rational relationship to the documented damages.

Can I bring a bad faith claim if my insurer is handling my own uninsured motorist claim?

Yes. First-party bad faith claims against your own insurer are fully recognized under Florida law and in the other jurisdictions the firm serves. When a carrier acts unreasonably in handling a UM or UIM claim brought by its own policyholder, the same standards and remedies apply as in third-party bad faith cases. These first-party claims are actually quite common and are a frequent source of litigation given how many accident victims ultimately rely on their own coverage after being hit by uninsured drivers.

What procedural requirements apply to bad faith claims?

The Civil Remedy Notice requirement under Section 624.155 applies to statutory bad faith claims. Florida also recognizes common law bad faith claims in certain circumstances, particularly in the third-party context, which do not require the same pre-suit notice. The interplay between these two tracks is legally nuanced, and which path is appropriate depends on the specific facts of the claim, the type of policy involved, and the carrier’s conduct.

What happens if my bad faith case goes to trial and the jury awards more than the policy limit?

That is precisely the remedy the law intends. When an insurer refuses to settle within policy limits and the case proceeds to a verdict that exceeds those limits, the carrier may be responsible for the entire amount. The excess verdict exposure is one of the most powerful tools in bad faith litigation because it removes the carrier’s incentive to use policy limits as a ceiling on its exposure when it has acted unreasonably in settlement negotiations.

How long do I have to file a bad faith claim?

Florida’s statute of limitations for a bad faith claim under Section 624.155 is generally five years from the date the cause of action accrues. However, the accrual date is not always straightforward. It typically runs from when the underlying claim is resolved and the bad faith cause of action matures, not from the date of the original denial. Given the procedural requirements that must be satisfied before filing, the timeline should be evaluated carefully and not treated as a comfort to delay action.

Will pursuing a bad faith claim affect my relationship with my insurance company going forward?

This concern comes up often. The law does not permit insurers to cancel or non-renew a policy in retaliation for filing a Civil Remedy Notice or pursuing a bad faith lawsuit, and doing so could itself constitute an unfair insurance practice. That said, how insurance relationships evolve after litigation is a practical question worth discussing during a consultation, along with any steps that can be taken to document the carrier’s conduct throughout the process.

How the Law Differs Across Florida, Washington, and Puerto Rico

In Florida, most personal injury claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations and a modified comparative negligence rule that bars recovery if the plaintiff is 51 percent or more at fault. Florida’s no-fault PIP system provides limited initial coverage for motor vehicle injuries but does not apply to all accident types.

Washington operates under a traditional fault-based system with pure comparative fault, allowing recovery even when the injured party bears majority responsibility. The three-year statute of limitations provides more time to file than Florida or Puerto Rico. Learn more about our Washington practice.

Puerto Rico’s civil law system governs negligence claims under Article 1536 of the Civil Code. The island follows pure comparative fault but imposes a one-year statute of limitations, the shortest of any U.S. jurisdiction. The ACAA provides limited no-fault coverage for motor vehicle accidents. See our Puerto Rico page for details.

The Pendas Law Firm maintains offices across all three jurisdictions and applies the specific rules of each to build the strongest possible case for every client.

Florida, Washington, and Puerto Rico Communities Served

The Pendas Law Firm serves clients across a broad geographic footprint that spans multiple regions and communities. In Florida, the firm handles bad faith cases for clients in Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, Fort Lauderdale, and the surrounding metro areas, including communities along the I-95 corridor in Broward and Palm Beach counties. The firm also serves clients in Gainesville, Daytona Beach, and throughout Central Florida’s growing suburban corridors. In Washington State, the firm’s reach extends to clients in the Seattle metro area and beyond. Puerto Rico clients throughout the island, from the San Juan metropolitan area to communities on the western and southern coasts, receive the same level of attention and advocacy as clients on the mainland.

Speak with an Insurance Bad Faith Attorney About What Comes Next

A consultation with The Pendas Law Firm is not a high-pressure sales meeting. It is a structured conversation where you describe what happened, the firm’s attorneys evaluate the carrier’s conduct against the applicable legal standards, and you receive an honest assessment of whether a bad faith claim is viable and what pursuing it would involve. The firm handles these cases on a contingency fee basis, which means there is no upfront cost and no fee unless the case is resolved in your favor. If you believe an insurance company has failed its obligations to you, reaching out to an insurance bad faith lawyer at The Pendas Law Firm is the straightforward next step. The procedural requirements that govern these claims create real deadlines that cannot be walked back, and the sooner the relevant evidence is documented and preserved, the stronger the foundation for the case that follows.

The Pendas Law Firm handles insurance bad faith cases across multiple jurisdictions. For location-specific guidance, visit our Florida Insurance Bad Faith Lawyer, Washington Insurance Bad Faith Lawyer, and Puerto Rico Insurance Bad Faith Lawyer pages.