Written by: Yusuf Nurudeen Ayodele (B.Sc., AAT, ACA (ICAN))
Published: July 10, 2026
Last updated: October 6, 2026
Topic: Florida Auto Insurance Claims
Source review: Florida Statutes and Eleventh Circuit opinion (Woods v. Progressive American Ins. Co., No. 23-13407)
Why Lauren Woods Won Her Underinsured Motorist Claim But Lost Her Florida Bad Faith Lawsuit
A Florida driver named Lauren Woods was hit by an underinsured motorist, filed a claim, and eventually won $545,760 from a jury — nearly double her policy limit.
That part of her story is a win. (Woods v. Progressive American Ins. Co., No. 23-13407 (11th Cir. Nov. 17, 2025).)
Note: This is Woods v. Progressive American Insurance Co. (11th Cir. No. 23-13407), a first-party underinsured-motorist bad-faith case. It is unrelated to the similarly named Wood v. Progressive Select Insurance Co. (11th Cir. No. 24-13479), a third-party bad-faith case over a $50,000 policy discussed here.
But when she later sued her own insurer for bad faith, arguing Progressive should have paid faster and paid more, she lost, and in November 2025 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed the loss was fair.
Her appeal didn't revisit whether she was injured, since the UIM jury had already found her injury permanent. It asked whether the trial court acted within its discretion when it kept the UIM verdict and excess judgment away from the bad-faith jury.
The gap between Woods' two outcomes says a lot about how Florida insurance claims actually work, what "bad faith" does and doesn't cover, and what documentation and timing decisions matter long before a case ever reaches a jury.
By the end of this guide, you'll understand why the underinsured motorist claim succeeded while the bad faith claim under §624.155(1) (b) didn't, what Florida law actually requires of insurers, and the practical steps that put policyholders in a stronger position after any accident.
In a separate matter, Progressive will refund nearly $1 billion to Florida auto policyholders, as announced by the Governor's office in 2025 (our breakdown here).
What Happened In Woods V. Progressive American Insurance Company
Woods was seriously and permanently injured in a car accident caused by a driver whose insurance wasn't enough to cover her losses.
This is the situation underinsured motorist coverage is built for: when the at-fault driver's liability coverage runs out, the injured driver's own UIM coverage can pay the difference, up to the limit she bought.
She filed a claim under her own policy's underinsured motorist (UIM) provision, and when Progressive didn't pay the full amount she believed she was owed, she sued.
Stage 1: The Underinsured Motorist Claim
A jury in the Southern District of Florida heard the UIM claim first. The jury sided with Woods and awarded her $545,760 — well above the $300,000 limit on her policy.
The jury also found that Woods suffered a permanent injury as a result of the accident, a finding both sides later stipulated to before the bad-faith trial.
The court entered final judgment in her favor for $412,208.17 after adjustments. Even after those adjustments, the judgment exceeded her $300,000 policy limit by more than $112,000, and that excess is what Woods would later point to as her damages in the bad-faith case.
Stage 2: The Bad Faith Claim
Winning the UIM case didn't end things, since auto accident claims often follow this same two-stage pattern — a UIM claim resolved one way, a bad-faith claim resolved another. Woods then brought a separate lawsuit under Florida Statute §624.155, arguing that Progressive had acted in bad faith by not settling sooner.
This time, the case went to a different jury — and that jury sided with Progressive. Woods appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment in a published opinion in November 2025.
The central dispute on appeal was evidentiary. Woods wanted the jury in the bad-faith trial to hear about the earlier UIM verdict and the resulting excess judgment, arguing they were relevant to whether Progressive had acted unfairly.
The trial court disagreed, reasoning that the bad-faith case was limited to Progressive's conduct before the UIM trial, and that the size of the excess judgment was a damages question the parties had already agreed a judge — not the jury — would decide.
The appellate court agreed that excluding this evidence was within the trial court's discretion, noting that the question of whether evidence should be admitted is ultimately a legal determination for the court, not something fixed in place by the parties' earlier stipulations.
The Eleventh Circuit's opinion reiterated a longstanding principle that a trial court has "broad discretion in determining whether to hold a party to its stipulation."
An excess judgment — the gap between a policy's limit and what a jury actually awards — is exactly what Woods walked away with after her UIM trial, and it's a distinct area of Florida law with consequences that outlast the underlying accident itself.
| Stage | What Happened | Result | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| UIM Claim (2021 Jury Trial) | Woods sued for underinsured motorist benefits. | Jury ruled for Woods. | $545,760 verdict; $412,208.17 final judgment. |
| Bad Faith Claim (2023 Jury Trial) | Woods sued Progressive for failing to settle in good faith. | Jury ruled for Progressive. | No additional damages. |
| Appeal (11th Cir., Nov. 2025) | Woods challenged evidentiary rulings from the bad-faith trial. | Affirmed for Progressive. | Judgment stands. |
Why Florida Insurance Claims Get Denied
A strong UIM claim and a bad-faith lawsuit are two different legal questions, evaluated with different evidence and different rules.
Winning one doesn't guarantee winning the other, and the specific timing of an insurer's conduct — before or after certain events — can determine what a jury is even allowed to hear.
Denial patterns are also shifting for reasons that have nothing to do with an individual claim's merits. A 2022 NAIC survey found that 88% of responding auto insurers use, plan to use, or plan to explore AI or machine learning in their operations more on AI in claims. It's fair to ask whether software played a role in a decision, but a denial still has to rest on the policy and the facts.
A denial isn't the end of the road, either. Florida law requires insurers to disclose specific things to policyholders after a denial, and there's a defined set of rights that kicks in the moment that letter arrives.
Common Reasons Florida Claims Get Denied
Most denials in Florida trace back to a handful of recurring issues, and understanding them ahead of time is one of the more practical things a policyholder can do.
Because the rules behind these denials come from statewide statutes such as §627.736 (PIP) and §627.727 (UM/UIM), they apply the same way no matter where in Florida the crash happened.
Documentation And Timing Issues
Under Florida Statute §627.736(1)(a), PIP medical benefits are available only if the injured person receives initial services and care within 14 days after the accident.
Miss that window, and PIP medical benefits aren't payable. The delay can also give an insurer room to argue the injury wasn't related to the crash.
Insurers often look for any reason to minimize payouts, including disputes over whether treatment was timely or medically necessary.
Policy Exclusions And Lapses
Every policy has an exclusions section, and insurers frequently point to it. Common triggers include a lapsed policy at the time of the accident, commercial use of a personal vehicle (rideshare or delivery driving without the right endorsement), or damage the insurer characterizes as pre-existing rather than caused by the covered event.
Anyone disputing a car accident claim should check the policy's lapse and exclusion language first, since that's usually where an otherwise valid claim gets challenged.
Bad Faith vs. Legitimate Denial
Florida law distinguishes between an insurer making a reasonable coverage decision and an insurer failing to investigate fairly or ignoring evidence — not every denial is wrongful, and the difference turns on which of these actually happened.
Mere negligence by an insurer is not enough on its own to establish bad faith — the conduct has to fall short of the good-faith standard Florida law requires.
Florida courts apply what's called a totality-of-the-circumstances test to bad-faith questions, weighing factors like how promptly the insurer investigated, whether it gave fair consideration to a reasonable settlement demand, and how it communicated with the policyholder along the way.
A single delayed phone call rarely amounts to bad faith on its own; a pattern of ignored documentation, unexplained delays, or dismissed medical evidence is more likely to — the same pattern that tends to separate a legitimate denial from a real problem in Florida car accident claims.
Misrepresentation And Cooperation Clauses
Most policies also require policyholders to cooperate with the insurer's investigation — answering questions honestly, providing requested documents, and sometimes sitting for an examination.
Under Florida Statute §817.234, submitting false information on a claim can lead to denial, cancellation, or even criminal exposure — a risk that has nothing to do with how minor or major the underlying accident was.
Policyholders should always be truthful, but an insurer also can't treat a minor, honest inconsistency as a pretext to deny an otherwise valid claim.
| Denial Reason | Why It Happens | How To Reduce The Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Late Medical Treatment | Missed the PIP 14-day window. | Seek treatment immediately, even for minor symptoms. |
| Policy Lapse | Missed premium payment before the accident. | Set up autopay and calendar reminders before renewal. |
| Insufficient Documentation | Missing photos, records, or estimates. | Document everything at the accident scene and keep organized records. |
| Disputed Medical Necessity | Insurer argues the treatment was excessive or unnecessary. | Follow through on prescribed treatment and maintain detailed medical records. |
| Pre-existing Condition Argument | Insurer attributes the injury to a prior medical condition. | Obtain medical documentation clearly linking your symptoms to the accident. |
Understanding Underinsured Motorist Coverage In Florida
Florida's bodily injury liability requirements are, notably, nonexistent—the state only mandates $10,000 in PIP under Florida Statute §627.736 and $10,000 in property damage liability, with §627.733 setting out the underlying requirement to carry that security.
That means a driver who causes a serious accident could carry no coverage at all for the other person's injuries.
Uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, addressed in Florida Statute §627.727, exists to fill that gap—arguably the most important optional coverage a Florida driver can carry, since it's often the only meaningful path to recovery when the at-fault driver can't pay.
UM applies when the at-fault driver has no bodily injury coverage; UIM applies when they have some coverage, but not enough. Insurers are required to offer this coverage to every policyholder, though it can be rejected in writing.
Stacked vs. Non-Stacked Coverage
Stacked coverage multiplies the UM/UIM limit by the number of insured vehicles on a policy, while non-stacked coverage caps out at a single limit regardless of how many vehicles are covered.
A household with three cars and $100,000 in stacked coverage per vehicle could have up to $300,000 available, while the same limit non-stacked tops out at $100,000 total.
That math gets more complicated fast once more than one person is hurt in the same crash. Florida courts have had to work out exactly this problem—most notably in Farinas v. Florida Farm Bureau, where a single exhausted policy left multiple claimants competing for the same shrinking pool of money.
If a settlement with an at-fault driver's insurer won't fully cover a claimant's losses, the statute requires written notice to every UM/UIM insurer before finalizing that settlement—skipping this step can jeopardize the underinsured motorist claim entirely.
| Coverage | Required in Florida? | What It Pays For | Minimum/Typical Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| PIP (Personal Injury Protection) | Yes | Your own medical bills and lost wages, regardless of who caused the accident. | $10,000 minimum |
| UM (Uninsured Motorist) | No, but insurers must offer it. | Your damages when the at-fault driver has no liability insurance coverage. | Set by the policyholder. |
| UIM (Underinsured Motorist) | No, but insurers must offer it. | The difference between the at-fault driver's liability coverage and your total damages. | Set by the policyholder. |
Florida's Bad Faith Law And The Civil Remedy Notice Process
Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b) lets a policyholder sue an insurer for not attempting in good faith to settle a claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so.
For UM/UIM claims like Woods', §627.727(9) allows the damages in that action to include the amount above the policy limits. The statute also comes with strict procedural requirements, starting with a mandatory notice.
What Florida Statute §624.155 Requires
Before filing a bad-faith lawsuit, a policyholder must give 60 days' written notice of the violation through a Civil Remedy Notice filed with the Florida Department of Financial Services on the department's form.
The department forwards the notice to the insurer, and the suit can't proceed if, within those 60 days, the damages are paid or the circumstances giving rise to the violation are corrected.
(We've covered that 60-day cure window in detail elsewhere on this site, for readers who want the mechanics of exactly how an insurer can avoid a suit by acting in time.)
The CRN itself isn't optional paperwork — filing it is mandatory before a bad-faith suit can proceed, and a phone call or letter to the insurer won't substitute for the formal notice.
Getting the notice right matters more than most policyholders expect: the specific-violation requirement has tripped up claimants whose notices were later ruled too vague to support a bad-faith claim at all.
What Woods Teaches About Evidentiary Limits
The Woods case illustrates a subtler point: even with a valid bad-faith claim theory, the specific window of an insurer's alleged misconduct shapes what evidence a jury gets to hear.
Because Woods limited her bad-faith theory to Progressive's conduct before the UIM trial, evidence generated during and after that trial — including the verdict itself — was ruled irrelevant to the narrower question the jury had to decide.
How HB 837 Changed The Landscape
The reform codified that mere negligence alone isn't enough to establish bad faith. It introduced comparative bad faith, which lets the jury reduce damages if the insured or claimant didn't act in good faith in furnishing information, making demands, setting deadlines, or attempting to settle.
It also created a 90-day safe harbor: a bad-faith action involving a liability insurance claim can't proceed if the insurer tenders the lesser of the policy limits or the amount demanded within 90 days after receiving actual notice of the claim along with sufficient evidence to support the amount.
The safe harbor has a limited scope, though. It applies only to bad-faith actions "involving a liability insurance claim," so it wouldn't cover a first-party UIM dispute like Woods'.
The negligence and comparative-bad-faith rules apply "in any bad faith action." Woods' own lawsuit dates back to 2019 (S.D. Fla. No. 9:19-cv-80517), so don't assume these 2023 changes shaped her trial.
The bad-faith cause of action itself survived the reform, and insurers who lose after an adverse judgment can still be on the hook for the claimant's attorney's fees.
For policyholders, the practical effect is that bad-faith claims now carry a somewhat higher bar than they did a few years ago, which makes the documentation and communication habits described later in this guide even more relevant.
Under HB 837's comparative bad-faith standard, a well-documented, promptly reported claim leaves less room for an insurer to argue that any delay was partly the claimant's own doing.
Consider A Common Situation
Example: A driver is rear-ended by a driver whose bodily injury coverage is only $25,000, but the driver's medical bills reach $60,000.
Florida PIP pays 80% of reasonable medical expenses up to its $10,000 limit, and §627.736(3) bars recovering damages that PIP has already paid. Assuming the full $10,000 PIP benefit applies, $50,000 of the bills remains. The at-fault driver's $25,000 liability payment covers half of that, and the driver's $100,000 in UIM coverage can pick up the remaining $25,000.
This is a made-up example, for clarity — not a description of how any specific claim will be valued.
What This Means For Florida Policyholders
Several habits, listed below, shape whether a claim gets paid smoothly — most of them happen long before any dispute reaches a lawyer or a courtroom.
Several habits, listed below, shape whether a claim gets paid smoothly — most of them happen long before any dispute reaches a lawyer or a courtroom.
Documentation Of What To Do Next After An Accident
Photograph the scene from multiple angles, including vehicle damage, skid marks, and road conditions
Get the responding officer's name, badge number, and the police report number
Collect names and contact information for every witness, not just the other driver
Seek medical treatment immediately, even if injuries seem minor at first
Keep a folder of medical bills, repair estimates, and correspondence with the insurer
Start a symptom journal noting pain levels and how injuries affect daily activities
Communicating With Adjusters The Right Way
Adjusters work for the insurance company, and recorded statements can be used to find inconsistencies later.
Policyholders often benefit from sticking to factual, unemotional accounts of what happened, avoiding speculation about fault, and putting significant questions or disputes in writing rather than relying on phone calls alone.
A Few Habits Tend To Help Throughout The Process
- Request a copy of the denial letter or claim decision in writing, even if it was first communicated by phone.
- Compare the insurer's stated reason for any delay or denial against the actual policy language, not just the summary in the letter.
- Keep a simple log of every call and email, noting the date, the name of the representative, and what was discussed.
- Ask direct questions when something is unclear — for example, which specific exclusion applies, or what additional documentation would change the outcome.
- Avoid agreeing to a quick settlement before the full extent of injuries or damage is known, since accepting a release can close off further recovery.
None of this replaces professional judgment about a specific claim, and an accident with disputed liability, multiple vehicles, or a denial that doesn't seem to match the policy is often a reasonable moment to involve a licensed professional who can review the specific facts.
Before signing any settlement release, read exactly which claims and which parties it covers, and have unclear wording reviewed before you sign rather than after.
Main Points To Remember
- Under Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)3.f, failing to promptly give the insured a reasonable written explanation of the policy basis for a denial is an unfair claim settlement practice.
- Ask for that explanation in writing. Comparing that stated reason against your actual policy language and documentation is often the fastest way to identify a mistake.
- If the explanation seems incomplete, requesting clarification in writing creates a record and may resolve the issue without further escalation.
Beyond The Injury: What Woods Reveals About Evidence, Timing And Insurance Litigation
The Woods case shows how procedure and timing shape a bad-faith trial. After Woods limited her theory to Progressive's conduct before the UIM trial, the court excluded the UIM verdict and excess judgment.
The jury then found she hadn't proven bad faith, and the Eleventh Circuit held that the exclusion was not an abuse of discretion.
That's a useful lesson well beyond bad-faith litigation: documentation created early, treatment sought promptly, and communication kept in writing all shape what options are available later, whether a claim ever reaches litigation or not.
None of this guarantees a particular outcome, since insurance disputes depend heavily on individual policy language, the specific facts of an accident, and how a claim is documented and communicated from the start.
Woods' case also shows the limits of what a winning verdict proves. The Eleventh Circuit explained that an underlying UIM verdict and excess judgment generally establish damages, not bad-faith liability, and that an insurer can be wrong about a claim without acting in bad faith.
What matters in a bad-faith case is the record of what the insurer knew and did at the time, which is why documentation created early is worth the effort.
Editorial Disclaimer
This report is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal, financial, insurance, or tax advice.
Insurance laws, policy terms, and claim outcomes vary based on individual circumstances and jurisdiction.
Readers should review their own insurance policies and consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their situation.
A Note On This Case
This section is provided for educational and informational purposes only.
Woods v. Progressive American Insurance Co. is a real, published Eleventh Circuit decision, and the numbers, dates, and procedural history described above are drawn directly from that opinion.
But one case — however instructive — is not a formula. Woods won her underinsured motorist claim and lost her bad-faith claim not because "UIM claims succeed" or "bad-faith claims fail," but because of the specific evidence, timing, and procedural posture unique to her facts.
A different accident, a different insurer's conduct, or a different Civil Remedy Notice could produce the opposite result on both counts.
The hypothetical example in this guide (A Note On This Case) is illustrative only and does not reflect how any actual claim would be valued.
Nothing here should be read as a prediction of how a similar claim will turn out, and reviewing this article is not a substitute for having your own policy, denial letter, or Civil Remedy Notice reviewed by someone who can see the actual documents.