Fundora v. Dangond
Plaintiff conditioned his settlement offer on written confirmation from the insurer that no other liability coverage existed, invoking section 627.4137(1). Progressive accepted the offer while, the same day, separately disclosing an additional policy held by a codefendant that might cover the accident. The Third District held the settlement was unenforceable because the section 627.4137 disclosure was an essential term of the offer with which the insurer failed to comply, and reversed the order enforcing the settlement.
Key facts
- Plaintiff Fundora conditioned his settlement offer on written confirmation from Progressive Insurance that no other liability coverage existed for the accident, invoking section 627.4137(1).
- Progressive accepted Fundora's settlement offer the same day but separately disclosed that a codefendant held an additional insurance policy that might cover the accident.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion aligns the Third District with the Second and Fourth Districts (Schlosser and Cheverie) in treating section 627.4137 coverage disclosure as an essential term when the claimant makes it a condition of… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.