JOSHUA FONOLLOSA, ET AL.

v.

AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 22, 2026.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D24-1777

Lower Tribunal No. 14-21984-CA-01

Joshua Fonollosa, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley and Gina Beovides, Judges.

Neblett Law Group, and David A. Neblett, and James M. Mahaffey III and John A. Wynn, for appellants.

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Brandon J. Tyler and Mark D. Tinker (Tampa), for appellee.

Before MILLER, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 624.155(3)(b)1., 2.,4., Fla. Stat. (2020) (“The notice shall state with specificity the following information . . . 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any.”); Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (affirming dismissal of insured's statutory bad faith claim where civil remedy notice failed to specify statutory and policy provisions at issue); Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 351 So. 3d 136, 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (concluding that even under “more lenient substantial compliance test” insured's bad faith claim failed because civil remedy notice did not comply with section 624.155's specificity requirements); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 338 So. 3d 338, 341 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration or rehearing which raises an issue that could have [been], but wasn't, raised in the initial motion or at the initial hearing.”); Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So. 2d 158, 160 (Fla. 1996) (holding that to comply with the requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, “a plaintiff must obtain leave from the trial court to amend the complaint before punitive damages may be asserted. . . . [A]ny punitive damages claim alleged

prior to a party asking for and receiving leave of the court must be dismissed or stricken.” (citations omitted); Roberts v. Int'l Speedway Corp., 542 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (explaining that order denying motion to assess interest constituted final order where nothing else remained to be done in the cause).