Hunton Practice Group Head, Walter Andrews, Discusses Implications of Florida Supreme Court’s Recent Opinion on Coverage for Chapter 558 Notices
Time 2 Minute Read
Categories: Industry News

In an article appearing in Law360, Hunton & Williams LLP’s insurance coverage practice group head, Walter Andrews, weighs in on the Florida Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum and Forster Specialty Insurance Co. As I discussed in my previous blog post on the Altman Contractors case, available here, the Florida Supreme Court held that a Chapter 558 notice of construction defect constitutes a “alternative dispute resolution proceeding” under the definition of “suit” in a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy so as to possibly trigger the insurer’s duty to defend. There, the policy defined “suit” as including “[a]ny other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured submits with our consent.”

As Mr. Andrews points out, however, the Court’s holding may create problems for construction industry policyholders because policyholders may nonetheless have to wait and see if the insurer will agree to grant consent to and become involved in the Chapter 558 process. As Mr. Andrews suggests, the majority’s narrow reading of the definition of “suit” vis-à-vis the Chapter 558 process “means that the insured won't know if it will have a defense provided (which makes it even less likely that it will respond and attempt to reach a resolution) and the claimant won't know if there is going to be a meaningful process undertaken, at all.”  Indeed, Mr. Andrews’ comments echo the sentiment of Justice Pariente who, in her dissent, suggests that the majority’s holding incentivizes insureds to “not participate in the Chapter 558 process and instead opt out of the chapter 558 process in favor of subjecting itself to a lawsuit, which would undoubtedly constitute a ‘suit’ that invokes the insurer’s duty to defend… Creating such disincentives undermines the Legislature’s intent in enacting chapter 558 to ‘reduce the need for litigation.’”

  • Partner

    Andrea helps companies navigate disasters and swiftly recover insurance funds to restore operations with minimal impact to the bottom line. She leads the firm’s cyber insurance practice and serves as a firmwide hiring partner.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

Colleges and universities have long sat at the crossroads of freedom of expression and societal change. As campus activism surges, they face growing pressure to protect their institutional missions while upholding students’ individual rights in an era of heightened scrutiny.

Time 4 Minute Read

Artificial intelligence is transforming how businesses operate—but with innovation comes new, complex risks. A recent lawsuit—Raine, et al. v. OpenAI, Inc., Docket No. CGC25628528 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug 26, 2025)—spotlights this dynamic and highlights why tried-and-true insurance products are still a critical first line of defense.

On August 26, 2025, the parents of a 16-year-old boy sued OpenAI, its CEO Sam Altman, and certain employees and investors. They claim that ChatGPT contributed to their son’s suicide by encouraging suicidal conduct, providing instructions on how to commit suicide, and even offering assistance in tying the knot used by the boy in the noose that eventually took the boy’s life. According to the complaint, the boy told ChatGPT that he “intended to commit suicide.” Rather than dissuade the suicide, the complaint claims that ChatGPT offered to “help him write a suicide note,” stating “I’ll help you with it. Every word.” Based on this factual background, the lawsuit alleges design defects, inadequate warnings, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Importantly, these allegations are just that: allegations. The case is just beginning, meaning no proof or substantiation has yet been offered beyond the allegations.

Time 4 Minute Read

A Delaware court recently held in Mattel, Inc. and Fisher Price, Inc. v. XL Insurance America, Inc., et al., that a series of product liability claims dating back to 2013 constituted a single “occurrence” under the toy manufacturer’s and distributor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policies.

Time 4 Minute Read

In April 2025, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a judgment against a Florida lodge and held that a jury should determine whether the failure of the lodge’s insurer to initiate settlement proceedings before a claim was filed constituted bad faith. In reversing the district court, the Eleventh Circuit reinforced the key duty imposed on insurers under Florida law to diligently and carefully investigate claims and act with an appropriate degree of care to protect their insureds or face consequences such as bad faith liability.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page