Case Law Update: Citizens v. Suarez — Third DCA Holds a $100 Nominal Offer Was Made in Good Faith

On August 19, 2026, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed a Miami-Dade trial court and held that a $100-per-plaintiff settlement proposal served by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation was made in good faith, clearing the carrier to recover attorney’s fees from the homeowners who did not accept it. The case is Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Maria Blanco Suarez, et al., No. 3D24-2256, on appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County (Judge Mavel Ruiz), L.T. No. 20-19214-CA-01. Judge Fernandez wrote for a panel with Judges Logue and Lobree; the court reverses and remands “with instructions to grant Citizens’ motion for attorney’s fees,” and the opinion is “[n]ot final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.”

How the case got here

According to the opinion, this was “a typical homeowner’s insurance policy.” In September 2019, the Suarezes notified Citizens of a loss caused by Hurricane Irma, “that struck Florida two years prior in September 2017.” The policy required prompt notice of any loss and production of documents on Citizens’ request; the court states they “failed to do either,” and Citizens denied coverage.

The Suarezes sued for breach of contract. Attached to the complaint was an estimate from their public adjuster identifying the damages claimed, “totaling $141,580.36.” Citizens denied breaching the policy and raised affirmative defenses including failure to give prompt notice and failure to produce requested information and documents — asserting that the violation of post-loss obligations “resulted in prejudice to Citizens’ investigation, which precluded coverage.”

In March 2021, Citizens served a proposal for settlement of $100.00 to each plaintiff. It was not accepted. Citizens moved for summary judgment in June 2021, and after depositions the trial court granted that motion. Citizens then sought attorney’s fees and costs under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2025), based on the rejected proposal; the trial court denied the motion, finding the offer was not made in good faith, and Citizens appealed.

The holding: the substance of the reason, not the timing of the offer

Reviewing the good-faith determination for abuse of discretion — citing City of Miami v. Bencomo, 333 So. 3d 758, 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) — the Third DCA found the trial court had abused its discretion. It quoted Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis Tein P.L., 277 So. 3d 299, 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019): “The obligation of good faith merely insists that the offeror have some reasonable foundation on which to base an offer.”

The court identified Citizens’ foundation as two facts that predated the lawsuit: “1) Suarez’s failure to timely report their claim (waiting two years after the hurricane) and 2) failure to comply with Citizens’ request for documents.” Because those were “the basis of Citizens’ denial of Suarez’s insurance claim from the beginning,” the trial court’s reliance on the point that “Defendant had not requested any Discovery prior to filing its Proposal for Settlement for a nominal amount” was, in the appellate court’s word, “irrelevant.”

The opinion then states the rule in two sentences worth reading closely: “The standard as to whether an offer is made in good faith is whether the insurance company has a reasonable basis for a nominal offer, at the time the offer is made. The focus of the analysis is the substance of the reason given for the nominal offer and not on the timing of the offer itself.”

What the court did with the public adjuster’s estimate

This is the part that matters most to public adjusters and claims professionals. The trial court had reasoned that the public adjuster’s estimate “demonstrated that Citizens had substantial exposure in this case and therefore concluded that the nominal offer was made in bad faith.”

The Third DCA rejected that reasoning by reading its own decision in State Farm Florida Insurance Company v. Laughlin-Alfonso, 118 So. 3d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), which it called “a very similar homeowners insurance case.” There, the homeowner had not responded to the carrier’s requests, failed to submit a Sworn Proof of Loss, failed to respond to discovery, and “failed to submit any credible evidence to support her supplemental claim, other than the public adjuster’s report” — and the court held the carrier “had a reasonable basis to believe that its exposure was nominal.” The Suarez panel observed that “this Court did not appear to provide any weight to the public adjuster’s report.”

The opinion closes that discussion by quoting its own precedent: “It is well established that insureds must comply with conditions precedent to filing a lawsuit against their insurer, including submission of a Sworn Proof of Loss” — citing Gonzalez v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 65 So. 3d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and Edwards v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 64 So. 3d 730, 732–33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

What this means if you have a Florida property damage claim

Section 768.79 is a general fee-shifting statute, available to insurers as a class and not only to the carrier in this case. A few practical points follow from what the Third DCA wrote, none of which predicts how any other case will be decided.

Late notice and unanswered document requests can do damage twice. In this record they supported both the coverage denial and the later finding that a $100 offer had a reasonable foundation. Second, a nominal proposal is not bad faith simply because it is small or arrives before the carrier has taken discovery; under this opinion the question is whether there was a reasonable basis for it when it was served. Third, in this district a public adjuster’s estimate standing alone may not settle the exposure question when the post-loss obligations behind it were not met.

Every fee dispute turns on its own record and dates, and this opinion is not final until any timely rehearing motion is resolved. If a Florida property insurer other than Citizens has denied or underpaid your claim, Louis Law Group offers a free case evaluation. See our guide on a denied homeowners insurance claim in Florida.