DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine your insurance company goes bankrupt after you win a lawsuit against them. Usually, a state fund called FIGA steps in to pay the judgment. In this case, the court said FIGA has to pay even if you filed your claim with them *after* the lawsuit judgment was entered, as long as the judgment itself happened before the insurer was officially declared bankrupt. It's like saying the fund is on the hook once the debt is established, not just when you ask them to pay it.

For Legal Practitioners

This appellate decision clarifies that FIGA's obligation to cover a judgment against an insolvent insurer attaches upon the entry of the judgment, irrespective of the claimant's subsequent filing of a proof of claim. The key distinction is that the judgment's entry post-insolvency but pre-proof of claim filing is the trigger, not the administrative step of filing the proof of claim. Practitioners should note that FIGA's liability is tied to the judicial determination of the debt, not the claimant's procedural diligence in notifying FIGA.

For Law Students

This case tests the scope of FIGA's coverage under the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association Act, specifically concerning the timing of its obligation. The court held that FIGA's duty to cover a judgment against an insolvent insurer is triggered by the *entry of the judgment*, not the filing of a proof of claim. This aligns with a broader interpretation of FIGA's role as a safety net for claimants who have secured a judicial determination of liability before the insurer's formal insolvency proceedings are fully concluded, raising issues of statutory interpretation and claimant protection.

Newsroom Summary

A state fund designed to protect consumers from bankrupt insurers, FIGA, must cover a court judgment even if the victim filed their claim with FIGA after the judgment was entered. The ruling clarifies that FIGA's obligation is triggered by the judgment itself, offering relief to policyholders who have already won legal battles.

Constitutional Issues

Whether the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association Act mandates coverage for claims against insolvent insurers even when prior coverage exists, depending on the substantial similarity of the policies.The interpretation of statutory language and insurance policy provisions to determine coverage obligations.

Rule Statements

"FIGA is obligated to provide coverage for the covered claims of the insolvent insurer, subject to the limitations and exclusions provided in this part."

"The exclusion for prior coverage applies only if the prior insurance policy was in effect and was substantially the same as the policy of the insolvent insurer."

Remedies

Reversal of the trial court's summary judgment.Remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion, likely to determine the extent of damages or coverage owed by FIGA.

Scenario: You were in a car accident and sued the at-fault driver's insurance company. Before the court entered a final judgment in your favor, the insurance company went bankrupt. You later filed a claim with the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA).

Your Rights: You have the right to have FIGA cover the judgment against the bankrupt insurer, even if you filed your claim with FIGA after the judgment was entered, as long as the judgment was entered before the insurer was officially declared insolvent.

What To Do: If you are in this situation, ensure you have documentation of the court judgment and the date it was entered, as well as proof of the insurer's insolvency and the date you filed your claim with FIGA. You may need to formally present this to FIGA to process your claim.

Is it legal for a state insurance guaranty association to have to pay a judgment against an insolvent insurer even if I filed my claim with the association after the judgment was entered?

Yes, in Florida, it is legal. The Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) is obligated to cover a judgment against an insolvent insurer if the judgment was entered before the claimant filed a proof of claim with FIGA, as the entry of the judgment itself triggers FIGA's obligation.

This ruling applies specifically to Florida law and the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA).

For Claimants with judgments against insolvent insurers in Florida

This ruling provides clarity and protection for claimants who have secured a judgment against an insurer that subsequently becomes insolvent. It ensures that FIGA's obligation is tied to the judicial determination of liability, rather than the claimant's administrative steps in notifying FIGA, potentially expediting recovery.

For Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA)

FIGA's financial obligations are triggered by the entry of a judgment against an insolvent insurer, regardless of the timing of the claimant's proof of claim filing. This may require FIGA to cover judgments that were entered before they were formally notified, emphasizing the importance of their role as a statutory safety net.

Q: What is DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION about?

DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION is a case decided by Florida District Court of Appeal on April 17, 2026.

Q: What court decided DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION?

DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal, which is part of the FL state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION decided?

DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION was decided on April 17, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION?

The citation for DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and who are the parties involved in DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION?

The full case name is DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Defendant. The parties are Dr. Gary Boraks, LLC, as assignee of Runnell D. Curry, who is the plaintiff, and the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA), which is the defendant.

Q: Which court decided the case of DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION?

The case of DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal.

Q: When was the judgment against the insolvent insurer entered in the DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC case?

In the DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC case, the judgment against the insolvent insurer, Infinity Insurance Company, was entered on March 29, 2021. This date is critical because it occurred after Infinity Insurance Company was declared insolvent but before the claimant, Runnell D. Curry, filed a proof of claim with FIGA.

Q: What was the core dispute in DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION?

The core dispute in this case centered on whether the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) was obligated to cover a judgment entered against an insolvent insurer, Infinity Insurance Company. Specifically, the question was whether FIGA's obligation was triggered by the entry of the judgment itself, or by the claimant's filing of a proof of claim.

Q: What is the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA)?

FIGA is a statutory entity created to protect policyholders of insolvent insurers in Florida. It steps in to pay claims and cover judgments against insurers that have become insolvent, thereby preventing financial hardship for insured individuals and entities.

Q: What is the significance of the assignment from Runnell D. Curry to Dr. Gary Boraks, LLC?

The assignment means that Runnell D. Curry transferred their rights to collect on the judgment against Infinity Insurance Company to Dr. Gary Boraks, LLC. This allowed Dr. Gary Boraks, LLC, as the assignee, to pursue FIGA for payment of the judgment.

Q: What was the underlying claim that led to the judgment against Infinity Insurance Company?

The underlying claim involved a personal injury protection (PIP) benefits claim by Runnell D. Curry against Infinity Insurance Company. After Infinity became insolvent, a judgment was entered for the outstanding benefits owed to Curry, which FIGA was then asked to cover.

Q: Is DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION published?

DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION?

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION. Key holdings: FIGA is obligated to pay covered claims against an insolvent insurer, including judgments against the insurer, even if the judgment was entered after the insurer's insolvency.; The filing of a proof of claim is not a prerequisite for FIGA's obligation to pay a judgment entered against an insolvent insurer.; The relevant trigger for FIGA's obligation is the entry of a judgment against the insolvent insurer, not the filing of a proof of claim.; The statute governing FIGA's obligations does not require a claimant to file a proof of claim before a judgment is entered to preserve FIGA's coverage.; The court rejected the argument that the claimant's failure to file a proof of claim before the judgment somehow prejudiced FIGA or invalidated the judgment for FIGA's purposes..

Q: Why is DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION important?

DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION has an impact score of 60/100, indicating significant legal impact. This decision clarifies the conditions under which FIGA must provide coverage for judgments against insolvent insurers. It emphasizes that the entry of a judgment is the critical event, providing greater certainty for claimants and potentially increasing the financial exposure of FIGA in cases where judgments are entered after an insurer's insolvency but before a proof of claim is formally filed.

Q: What precedent does DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION set?

DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION established the following key holdings: (1) FIGA is obligated to pay covered claims against an insolvent insurer, including judgments against the insurer, even if the judgment was entered after the insurer's insolvency. (2) The filing of a proof of claim is not a prerequisite for FIGA's obligation to pay a judgment entered against an insolvent insurer. (3) The relevant trigger for FIGA's obligation is the entry of a judgment against the insolvent insurer, not the filing of a proof of claim. (4) The statute governing FIGA's obligations does not require a claimant to file a proof of claim before a judgment is entered to preserve FIGA's coverage. (5) The court rejected the argument that the claimant's failure to file a proof of claim before the judgment somehow prejudiced FIGA or invalidated the judgment for FIGA's purposes.

Q: What are the key holdings in DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION?

1. FIGA is obligated to pay covered claims against an insolvent insurer, including judgments against the insurer, even if the judgment was entered after the insurer's insolvency. 2. The filing of a proof of claim is not a prerequisite for FIGA's obligation to pay a judgment entered against an insolvent insurer. 3. The relevant trigger for FIGA's obligation is the entry of a judgment against the insolvent insurer, not the filing of a proof of claim. 4. The statute governing FIGA's obligations does not require a claimant to file a proof of claim before a judgment is entered to preserve FIGA's coverage. 5. The court rejected the argument that the claimant's failure to file a proof of claim before the judgment somehow prejudiced FIGA or invalidated the judgment for FIGA's purposes.

Q: What cases are related to DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION?

Precedent cases cited or related to DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION: Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. G.C.C.I., Inc., 75 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 2011); Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. M.A.T. Construction, Inc., 98 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Q: What is the primary legal question addressed by the appellate court in this case?

The primary legal question was whether FIGA's statutory obligation to cover a judgment against an insolvent insurer is triggered by the entry of the judgment itself, or by the claimant's filing of a proof of claim with FIGA. The court had to interpret the relevant Florida statutes to determine the timing of FIGA's liability.

Q: What was the appellate court's holding regarding FIGA's obligation to cover the judgment?

The appellate court held that FIGA's obligation to cover a judgment against an insolvent insurer is triggered by the entry of the judgment. The court found that the timing of the claimant's proof of claim filing, which occurred after the judgment was entered, did not negate FIGA's statutory duty.

Q: How did the court interpret the relevant Florida statute concerning FIGA's obligations?

The court interpreted Florida Statute Section 631.57(1)(b)(4) to mean that FIGA's obligation to pay claims arises when a judgment is rendered against an insolvent insurer. The statute does not condition FIGA's liability on the claimant filing a proof of claim before the judgment is entered.

Q: What is the significance of the phrase 'covered claim' in relation to FIGA's duties?

A 'covered claim' under Florida law generally includes an unpaid claim or judgment against an insurer that becomes insolvent. The court determined that the judgment entered against Infinity Insurance Company qualified as a covered claim, obligating FIGA to pay it.

Q: Did the court consider the timing of the proof of claim filing relevant to FIGA's liability?

While the proof of claim filing is a necessary step for a claimant to receive payment from FIGA, the court determined it was not a prerequisite for FIGA's obligation to arise. The obligation was triggered by the entry of the judgment against the insolvent insurer, not by the subsequent filing of the proof of claim.

Q: What precedent or statutory language did the court rely on to reach its decision?

The court relied on the plain language of Florida Statute Section 631.57(1)(b)(4), which states that FIGA is obligated to 'pay and settle claims against insurers admitted to transact insurance in this state when such insurers become insolvent.' The court emphasized that the statute links the obligation to the existence of an insolvent insurer and a resulting claim or judgment.

Q: How does DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION affect me?

This decision clarifies the conditions under which FIGA must provide coverage for judgments against insolvent insurers. It emphasizes that the entry of a judgment is the critical event, providing greater certainty for claimants and potentially increasing the financial exposure of FIGA in cases where judgments are entered after an insurer's insolvency but before a proof of claim is formally filed. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the practical impact of this ruling for claimants with judgments against insolvent insurers?

This ruling provides practical assurance to claimants that once they obtain a judgment against an insurer that later becomes insolvent, FIGA will be obligated to cover that judgment, even if the proof of claim is filed after the insolvency and judgment dates. It clarifies the process and reduces uncertainty for those seeking recovery.

Q: How does this decision affect insurance companies operating in Florida?

The decision reinforces the role of FIGA as a safety net for policyholders. It means that insurers must be aware that if they become insolvent, judgments against them will likely be covered by FIGA, potentially impacting the overall financial stability calculations and risk assessments for the insurance market.

Q: Who is ultimately responsible for paying the judgment after this ruling?

Following this ruling, the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) is responsible for paying the judgment that Dr. Gary Boraks, LLC obtained against the insolvent insurer, Infinity Insurance Company. FIGA acts as the payor of last resort in such insolvency situations.

Q: What are the potential implications for the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association's funds?

This decision means that FIGA must cover the judgment, which will draw from its funds. The frequency and size of such judgments against insolvent insurers can impact the financial health and assessment obligations of FIGA, potentially leading to increased assessments on other insurers.

Q: What advice might be given to individuals or businesses who have a claim against an insolvent insurer?

Individuals and businesses with claims against an insolvent insurer should promptly secure a judgment if possible and then file a proof of claim with FIGA as soon as they are aware of the insolvency. This ruling suggests that the judgment itself is the key trigger for FIGA's obligation.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader history of insurance insolvency protection in Florida?

This case is part of the ongoing evolution of insurance insolvency protection in Florida, which aims to shield consumers from the financial fallout of insurer failures. FIGA was established to provide this protection, and court decisions like this refine the understanding and application of its statutory mandate.

Q: Are there any historical parallels to the issue of when FIGA's obligations are triggered?

Historically, disputes have arisen regarding the scope and timing of FIGA's coverage. This case addresses a specific temporal question about whether a judgment or a proof of claim filing takes precedence in triggering FIGA's duty to pay, reflecting a recurring need to clarify statutory intent.

Q: How does this ruling compare to other state guaranty association rulings on similar issues?

While specific state statutes and interpretations vary, many guaranty associations are designed to cover judgments against insolvent insurers. This Florida case emphasizes the importance of the judgment date as the trigger, a principle that may align with or differ from how other states interpret their respective guaranty association laws.

Q: What was the docket number in DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION?

The docket number for DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION is 6D2024-2504. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can DR. GARY BORAKS, LLC A/A/O RUNNELL D. CURRY v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What procedural path led this case to the Florida District Court of Appeal?

The case reached the Florida District Court of Appeal through an appeal filed by FIGA. FIGA was dissatisfied with the trial court's order compelling it to cover the judgment against the insolvent insurer, Infinity Insurance Company, and sought appellate review of that decision.

Q: What was the specific procedural ruling made by the trial court that FIGA appealed?

The trial court made a procedural ruling that compelled FIGA to cover the judgment entered in favor of Dr. Gary Boraks, LLC A/A/O Runnell D. Curry against the insolvent insurer, Infinity Insurance Company. FIGA appealed this order, arguing that its obligation was not yet triggered.

Q: What was the nature of the appellate court's review in this case?

The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the trial court's decision. This means the appellate court reviewed the legal issues independently, without giving deference to the trial court's legal conclusions, focusing on the interpretation of the relevant statutes.

Q: Did the court address any evidentiary issues in its decision?

The court's decision primarily focused on a question of law: the interpretation of Florida Statute Section 631.57(1)(b)(4). There is no indication in the summary that the court addressed specific evidentiary disputes; rather, the facts regarding the judgment date and proof of claim filing were apparently not in contention.