قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The florist loses the case due to excessive pandemic premiums

The florist loses the case due to excessive pandemic premiums



A florist failed to go through the appropriate administrative procedures when filing a lawsuit against State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., claiming that it should have been charged lower insurance premiums due to the pandemic, a federal appellate court ruled on Thursday. and upheld a lower court decision.

Alissa & # 39; s Flowers Inc., in Independence, Missouri, filed a class action lawsuit against State Farm in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Missouri, in May 2020, claiming that they had paid too much of its premiums to State Farm in light of its "significantly lower exposure rate due to covid-19," according to the judgment of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. Louis i Alissa & # 39 ;s Flowers, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

The court dismissed the case and was upheld by a three-judge panel.

State Farm argued that the law in Missouri demanded that the florist have brought his claims before the director of the Missouri Department of Ins. urance, sade domen.

The panel agreed. The ruling said that under the Missouri Statute, all "offended" individuals or entities must first ask the insurer to review the matter, and if there is insufficient relief, submit a written complaint to the director, who then pursues the matter.

"Alissa & # 39 ;s Flowers claims that it challenges premiums ̵

1; not interest rates – and that it therefore does not have to comply with the statutory administrative review," the ruling said.

"We conclude that the district court did not confuse the terms 'interest' and 'premium', as Alissa & # 39 ;s Flowers claims," ​​the decision said. The administrative review process set out in the charter "applies in commercial insurance contexts and to Alissa & # 39 ;s Flowers claims.

" The District Court correctly held that Alissa & # 39 ;s Flowers was obliged to exhaust administrative remedies because & # 39; poses a challenge to State Farm prices, "it said, citing a previous order, confirming the lower court's decision.

Actors in the case did not respond to a request for comment.


Source link