Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. David Hintz and Judith L. Hintz

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION,
Appellant,

v.

DAVID HINTZ and JUDITH L. HINTZ,
Appellees.

No. 4D2025-0204

[June 17, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Shari Africk-Olefson, Judge; L.T. Case No.
062021CA013493AXXXCE.

Hinda Klein of Conroy Simberg, Hollywood, for appellant.

Gil Kochavi and Terry Watson of HL Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale,
for appellees.

MAY, J.

It’s all about the attorney’s fees in this appeal from a final judgment for
the insureds. The Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (“FIGA”) argues
the trial court erred in mandating that it pay $10,507.90 to the insureds’
law firm as part of a negotiated settlement between the insureds and its
insolvent insurer. We agree and reverse.

• The Facts

The insureds filed an action for a declaratory judgment against their
insurer, alleging that Hurricane Irma caused damage to their roof,
resulting in a covered loss in 2017. Their insurer denied the claim,
indicating the damage was caused by a lack of maintenance, wear and
tear, and was thus not covered. The insureds’ amended complaint alleged
a breach of contract claim against the insurer and a request for attorney’s
fees pursuant to sections 627.428 or 626.9373, Florida Statutes (2022).
Prior to the scheduled trial, the parties settled the case. The settlement
communications provided for the insurer to pay a total of $30,000, with
two checks. One check was to be issued for $19,492.10, and made payable
to the insureds “[i]ndividually, Choice Mortgage, Double G Construction
Corp. and HL Law Group, PA and any other applicable
lienholder(s)/mortgage company(s).” (Emphasis added). The second
check, in the amount of $10,507.90, was to be made payable only to the
insureds’ attorneys. In exchange, the insureds agreed to sign a release of
“any and all causes of action, suits, claims for loss and demands of any
kind,” including “attorney’s fees.” (Emphasis added).

The insurer then became insolvent. FIGA was substituted as the
insurer’s guarantor. The second amended complaint filed against FIGA
sought attorney’s fees under section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2022).
FIGA paid $19,492.10 but refused to pay the law firm the additional
$10,507.90.

The insureds moved to enforce the settlement agreement, specifically
the second payment of $10,507.90 to be made payable to the insureds’
attorneys. FIGA responded that it was not responsible for the settlement
amount dedicated to the insureds’ attorney’s fees. FIGA argued attorney’s
fees were not part of the “covered claim” statutorily mandated to be paid
by FIGA.

After hearing argument, the trial court granted the motion to enforce
the settlement. The order mandated that FIGA “pay the remaining
$10,000.00 pursuant to the settlement agreement . . . .” 1

• The Analysis

FIGA raises a single argument on appeal: under the Florida Insurance
Guaranty Association Act (“the Act”), FIGA is not responsible to pay the
$10,507.90 portion of the settlement because that amount was for
attorney’s fees. The Act established FIGA’s limited obligations as the
insurer’s guarantor for a “covered claim” which “arises out of, and [is]
within the coverage.” Here, FIGA argues the settlement agreement

1
The original order granting the insureds’ motion indicated the settlement “did
not specify any breakdown or [sic] any sort.” FIGA moved to amend the order to
omit this language. The trial court granted the motion and omitted the reference
any lack of a breakdown in an order dated December 25, 2024. That order still
required FIGA to pay the remaining $10,000. The actual amount owed was
$10,507.90.

2
included payment for attorney’s fees, as demonstrated by the separate
check for $10,507.90 made payable to “The HL Law Group, PA.”

FIGA acknowledges that the insureds were statutorily entitled to
attorney’s fees against their insurer in the underlying litigation. However,
as the insurer’s guarantor, FIGA argues it is not liable for those fees.
Based on our supreme court’s decision in Petty v. Florida Insurance
Guaranty Ass’n, 80 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 2012), FIGA argues the attorney’s fees
aspect of the settlement is not part of a “covered claim.”

The insureds respond that FIGA was statutorily obligated to pay the
insurer’s covered claims and obligations. As the insurer’s statutory
guarantor, FIGA cannot simply refuse to honor the insurer’s prior
settlement agreement. The insureds suggest the settlement
communications did not expressly indicate the $10,507.90 check was for
attorney’s fees.

The insureds argue that FIGA cannot use extrinsic evidence to supply
missing terms that do not exist within the four corners of the settlement
agreement. Because no attorney’s fees were awarded by the trial court
under section 627.428, FIGA cannot establish that the $10,507.90 was for
attorney’s fees. Finally, the insureds suggest that FIGA’s challenge is
unpreserved. 2

“[S]ettlement agreements are interpreted like a contract and reviewed
de novo.” Marlin Yacht Mfg., Inc. v. Nichols, 254 So. 3d 1022, 1024 (Fla.
4th DCA 2018) (citing Barone v. Rogers, 930 So. 2d 761, 764 (Fla. 4th DCA
2006)).

Section 631.57(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2022), provides for FIGA to be
“obligated to the extent of the covered claims existing” against an
insolvent insurer before the insurer is declared insolvent. § 631.57(1)(a),
Fla. Stat. (2022) (emphasis added). Section 631.54, Florida Statutes
(2022), defines “covered claim” as:

an unpaid claim, including one of unearned premiums, which
arises out of, and is within the coverage, and not in excess
of, the applicable limits of an insurance policy to which this
part applies, issued by an insurer, if such insurer becomes
an insolvent insurer . . . .

2
We find no merit in the insureds’ suggestion that FIGA failed to preserve its
argument.

3
§ 631.54(4), Fla. Stat. (2022) (emphasis added).

Section 627.428 provides attorney’s fees for insureds who obtain a
judgment against their insurer. § 627.428, Fla. Stat. (2016) (repealed
March 23, 2023). In Petty, our supreme court held a statutory fee award
under section 627.428 was not “a covered claim,” and FIGA was not
required to pay those fees. 80 So. 3d at 315.

The supreme court opined that a “covered claim” has two separate
requirements: first, “it must arise, or originate, from an insurance policy;”
and second, “it must be within the coverage of, or be included within the
risks taken on and losses protected against in, an insurance policy.” Id.
at 316. The supreme court concluded the attorney’s fees claim did not
meet the second requirement. Id. at 316―17.

We reversed an order enforcing a similar settlement agreement in
Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass’n v. Waterfire Restoration, LLC, 427 So. 3d
996, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). There, the settlement agreement provided
for $4,000 to be paid to the plaintiff and $3,000 to be paid to counsel “for
attorney’s fees and costs.” Id. We opined that FIGA “does not simply step[]
into the shoes of the insolvent insurer and is not obligated to the same
extent as that insurer would be.” Id. (quoting Alessio ex rel. Estate of Garza
v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 91 So. 3d 910, 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)) (citation
modified). Under Petty, FIGA was not responsible for the attorney’s fees
amount.

In Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass’n v. Cadet, 431 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2026), we again reversed an order compelling FIGA to pay attorney’s
fees from a settlement agreement. There, the release and settlement
agreement called for $27,503.36 to be “made payable to Maranges, PLLC,
Trust Account, which includes attorneys’ fees and costs . . . .” Id. at 277.
We held that FIGA “cannot be compelled to pay the [attorney’s fees] portion
of the settlement . . . because the insured has not demonstrated that it
was included within the risks taken and losses protected against in the
subject insurance policy.” Id. at 278.

Our facts are slightly different but nonetheless compel the same result.
Here, the settlement agreement provided for two checks, with one check
made payable to the insureds’ law firm only. The agreement did not state
what the money was for. However, the insureds’ complaint requested
attorney’s fees under section 627.428. And the release expressly stated
that the insureds would release “any and all causes of action, suits, claims
for loss and demands of any kind,” including “attorney’s fees.”

4
(emphasis added). Thus, the settlement agreement contemplated that the
attorneys would be paid from the settlement funds. We cannot conceive
of any other explanation for the separate check to the law firm, nor have
the insureds provided an explanation other than the obvious—the
separate check was for attorney’s fees.

For this reason, we reverse the order compelling FIGA to pay the
remaining $10,000.

Reversed.

GROSS and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.

5