Florida’s Insurance Disclosure Demand: A Useful Pre-Suit Tool

When a client has a claim against a business, driver, property owner, or other potential defendant, one of the first practical questions is whether insurance exists to pay the claim. In Florida, a written request under section 627.4137, Florida Statutes, can provide an answer before suit is filed.

The statute applies to an insurer that does or may provide liability coverage for all or part of a claim. Once it receives a written request from the claimant or the claimant’s attorney, the insurer generally has 30 days to provide a sworn statement addressing each known policy, including excess and umbrella coverage. The response must identify the insurer and each insured, state the liability limits, disclose policy or coverage defenses then reasonably believed available, and provide a copy of the policy. Fla. Stat. § 627.4137(1).

The statute also reaches beyond the carrier. On written request, the insured or the insured’s agent must disclose the name and coverage of each known insurer and forward the request to the affected insurers. If facts later call for a change in the disclosure, the statement must be amended immediately. Fla. Stat. § 627.4137(1)-(2).

A section 627.4137 demand is not a settlement demand, and it is not an admission that coverage exists. It is an information-gathering device. It can help counsel identify an additional insured, a commercial general-liability policy, an excess layer, or a coverage issue that changes the value and direction of the case. That can be especially important in commercial disputes, construction claims, and serious injury matters, where the named defendant’s apparent assets may not tell the whole story.

The cases interpreting the statute show that insurance disclosure can become material to settlement. In Cheverie v. Geisser, 783 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the court considered a settlement offer conditioned on compliance with section 627.4137. The court concluded that the requested disclosure was not a mere technicality; access to accurate insurance information was essential to the claimant’s settlement decision. Cheverie is a reminder that a party should not assume a policy-limits offer resolves the matter when the offer itself makes proper disclosure a condition of acceptance.

Similarly, in Schlosser v. Perez, 832 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), the court addressed an offer seeking statutory insurance disclosure and concluded that the incomplete response prevented formation of an enforceable settlement agreement on the facts before it. The decision is often cited for the straightforward proposition that counsel should read the terms of a settlement demand carefully: if disclosure is an express condition, compliance matters.

The demand itself should be simple and direct. Identify the claimant, the date and nature of the occurrence, the insured or potential insured, and the claim if one has been assigned. Cite section 627.4137, request the sworn disclosure and policy copy, and ask the recipient to identify every known primary, excess, umbrella, and additional-insured policy that may respond.

Section 627.4137 does not itself give rise to a civil action for money damages, result in a statutory penalty, or impose an automatic sanction for noncompliance. See, e.g., Lucente v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 591 So. 2d 1126, 1127-28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) (noting that § 627.4137 “does not contain an implicit cause of action for a third party against an insurance company[,]” and even if it did, such a claim could not be raised unless or until the claimant had obtained a judgment against the insured). However, ignoring a proper insurance-disclosure request or one that is a condition of settlement can be expensive. It can derail a settlement, supply evidence relevant to bad faith, weaken policy defenses, and create unnecessary litigation over information that should have been produced in the first place.

Finally, the statute should not be treated as a substitute for discovery or coverage analysis. It does not establish liability, guarantee collectability, or resolve a coverage dispute. It does, however, give Florida claimants a practical way to obtain information that may be essential to evaluating settlement before litigation begins.