FL District Court finds that signature and “penalties of perjury” language sufficed to meet requirements of disclosure statute.

The trial court held that, as a matter of law, there was no pre-suit settlement agreement between the insurance carrier and its insured, the plaintiff Giordano, as the claims manager who prepared the 627.4137 insurance limits disclosure did not have the disclosure notarized, but merely declared “under penalties of perjury” that the information being provided “is true and correct.” Read in isolation, section 627.4137 does seem to require a notary; however, it must be read in conjunction with section 95.525, which applies when “a document be verified by a person.” Section 95.525 provides that a verification can be executed by either stating under oath or affirming the statements are true. In this case, the signature and “penalties of perjury” language sufficed to meet the requirements of the insurance disclosure statute. The practical implications is that it is easier for insurance companies to conform to the “under oath” requirements for the insurance disclosure as it does not have to be notarized; however, it is still safer to have the disclosure notarized whenever possible.

^{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}