How Long Does an Insurance Company Have to Settle a Claim in Florida After HB 837

Florida Insurance Claim Timelines: The 90-Day Tender Rule, Bad Faith, PIP Payments, and Settlement Checks

Florida does not impose one settlement deadline on every insurance claim. For qualifying liability claims, HB 837 created a 90-day protection against bad-faith liability when an insurer timely tenders the lesser of its policy limits or the amount demanded. That period begins when the insurer receives actual notice of the claim accompanied by sufficient evidence supporting its amount. It is not a promise that every car accident claim will settle within 90 days.

Other clocks govern other events. A statutory Civil Remedy Notice has a separate 60-day cure process. PIP benefits have their own payment rules. Once a person and an insurer agree in writing to settle, Florida generally requires payment to be tendered within 20 days, subject to the agreement and release provisions.

For an injured person in Hollywood or elsewhere in Broward County, the useful questions are which coverage applies, what the insurer has received, what it should reasonably know, and whether its response protects the rights involved.

The Insurance Claims Timeline in Florida After HB 837

A bodily-injury claim against the driver who caused a crash differs from a claim for benefits under your own policy. The first generally involves the driver's liability insurance. PIP and uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage involve different benefits and procedures, even when the same accident produces all three claims.

An insurance settlement timeline therefore has several stages: reporting the accident, investigating fault and coverage, documenting injuries, making a settlement demand, responding to the demand, and completing payment and releases. A deadline governing one stage does not necessarily govern the others.

Medical bills, lost income from missed work, and continuing treatment can make a prompt settlement important. They can also make an early final settlement risky if future medical needs remain uncertain. An insurer may tender limited liability coverage while the injured person continues pursuing other available insurance or responsible parties. Whether to accept depends on the settlement terms and the remaining claims.

General Insurance Claims and the Time to Accept or Deny a Claim

For general insurance claims, the insurance provider's evaluation depends on the coverage, the proof submitted, and the law governing that particular claim. There is no single statewide deadline requiring every insurer to accept or deny a claim, make a settlement offer, and pay it on the same schedule.

A reasonable period of time to investigate cannot be measured in isolation from what the insurer received and what remains genuinely unresolved. Under section 626.9541(1)(i), the coverage or investigation provision addresses the insured's written request within 30 days after completed proof of loss statements. A written statement that the claim is being investigated is different from a coverage determination or a settlement agreement. The provision should not be presented as an unconditional 30-day deadline from initial claim submission.

What HB 837 Changed About Florida Insurance Bad Faith

HB 837 became law on March 24, 2023. Its amendments to Florida Statutes section 624.155 added the 90-day liability-claim safe harbor, expressly stated that mere negligence alone is insufficient to establish bad faith, and made the good-faith conduct of insureds, claimants, and their representatives relevant to damages. It also established procedures for competing claims exceeding available liability limits.

Bad faith concerns an insurer's failure to fulfill its legal obligations in handling a claim. In a typical third-party failure-to-settle case, the liability insurer's duty runs to its own insured: the driver or business facing potential personal liability. The injured claimant's demand may give the insurer an opportunity to protect that insured by settling within coverage.

The longstanding duties described in Florida cases include investigating the facts, communicating settlement opportunities, warning the insured of potential excess exposure, and considering reasonable settlement opportunities. Boston Old Colony Insurance Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980), and Harvey v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 259 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2018), provide important historical context. Those cases predate HB 837 and must be read alongside the amended statute.

The practical focus remains what the insurer knew and what it did with that information. A low offer or an adjuster's mistake, standing alone, does not establish a successful bad-faith claim.

A Hypothetical Claim Against Typical Insurance Company

The following example is hypothetical. “Typical Insurance Company” is a fictional insurer, and the example does not describe a particular company's established practices.

A driver is injured in a Hollywood rear-end collision. Assume there is one injured claimant, applicable bodily-injury coverage of $100,000, and strong evidence that the insured driver caused the crash. Imaging and examinations document a spinal injury. After conservative treatment fails, a treating surgeon recommends surgery and explains its relationship to the accident, the anticipated treatment, and the likelihood it will be needed. The claimant also supplies evidence of ongoing limitations and any medically supported permanent injury.

Counsel sends Typical Insurance Company a $100,000 settlement demand with the available accident evidence, medical records, billing information, relevant prior records, the surgeon's opinion, and supporting future-cost information. The demand includes completed medical-record authorizations and asks for a substantive response within 30 days. Delivery is documented.

Typical Insurance Company's adjuster uses Mitchell or another medical-bill review tool to evaluate the charges, offers $20,000, and assigns little or no value to future treatment or pain and suffering. The adjuster then states that management will authorize policy limits only after surgery occurs.

That response raises several questions. Is there actually missing information? Is the disagreement about the need for surgery, causation, future costs, or noneconomic damages? Or is an internal approval rule controlling the evaluation despite the evidence already supplied? The fact pattern illustrates issues to investigate; it does not establish an automatic $100,000 entitlement or a proven bad-faith claim.

When the 90 Day Insurance Clock Starts

Section 624.155(4)(a) requires actual notice of a claim accompanied by sufficient evidence supporting its amount. The accident date, the date a claim number is created, and the date printed on a demand letter are not automatically the controlling date. A formal demand may provide the required information, but the statute does not say a document titled “policy limits demand” is always necessary.

In the Typical Insurance Company example, the relevant date may be receipt of the supported demand. It could be earlier if the insurer already had the required notice and evidence, or later if material support was missing. Neither the claimant's choice of a date nor the adjuster's refusal to obtain settlement authority conclusively determines the trigger.

The statutory phrase is “sufficient evidence to support the amount of the claim.” It does not say evidence sufficient to obtain management approval. The statute provides no exhaustive checklist or designation making the adjuster's judgment final. If litigation requires resolution of a disputed trigger, the court will address the issue through the applicable procedure; a genuine dispute of material fact can affect how it is resolved. This is a question requiring legal and factual analysis, not an automatic rule that every dispute belongs to either the judge or the jury.

Keep a dated record of what was sent, what was actually delivered, and what the insurer already possessed. Preserve the demand, its attachments, delivery confirmations, and subsequent correspondence. A cover letter listing the enclosed records makes a later disagreement easier to evaluate.

An insurer's request for another document does not itself establish that the clock never started or restarted. Conversely, calling a package “complete” does not make unsupported damages sufficiently documented. The contents and circumstances matter.

What Evidence Should Accompany a Policy Limits Demand

A useful settlement demand explains why the insured is responsible and why the injuries justify the amount requested. The supporting materials should fit the case rather than follow a generic document count.

1 Provide available evidence of fault, such as photographs, witness accounts, video, or relevant crash-report information.

2 Include medical records that explain the diagnosis, treatment, causation, and prognosis, together with available billing and payment information.

3 Support lost wages or reduced earning capacity with appropriate employment, income, or medical evidence.

4 Identify the amount sought, the claim being offered for settlement, the people to be released, and material settlement conditions.

5 State what information is still being obtained and answer reasonable requests for clarification.

For a hypothetical $25,000 bodily-injury policy and a surgically treated fracture, the operative report and hospital documentation may explain the demand more effectively than a large unexplained stack of bills. A higher demand involving disputed permanent disability may require additional medical and economic support.

HB 837 also changed the evidence and calculation of medical damages. A demand should account for applicable billing, payment, insurance, and letter-of-protection issues rather than assume that every billed dollar will necessarily be awarded at trial.

To identify the coverage, section 627.4137 provides a written-request procedure for sworn liability-insurance disclosures, including policy limits, known coverage defenses, and a copy of the policy. The insurer's statutory disclosure response is due within 30 days. That disclosure period is separate from the 90-day tender provision.

Medical Record Authorizations Help Document Cooperation

Supplying available records with the demand reduces uncertainty about what the insurer received. Relevant prior records can be particularly important when the insurer argues that symptoms predated the accident. Counsel should distinguish records already supplied from records requested but not yet received, and explain outstanding requests when appropriate.

A completed HIPAA authorization can also allow the insurer to obtain identified records directly. But access to records is different from actual receipt of evidence supporting the claim's amount. Providing an authorization does not, by itself, establish when the 90-day period began or eliminate every legitimate request for information.

An undated, signature-only authorization creates an avoidable issue. Federal regulations require a signature and date, an adequate description of the information, the authorized disclosing and receiving persons or classes, and the other required elements and statements. Leaving a required element incomplete can invalidate the authorization. Broad access can be described through an appropriately identified class; it should not depend on leaving required fields blank.

In the hypothetical, counsel supplies completed authorizations and an organized record index. If Typical Insurance Company says it needs more records, counsel asks which provider, date range, or specific information is missing and why it matters. Any restrictions on specially protected records must also be respected.

Can an Insurer Wait Until Surgery Occurs Before Paying Limits

Typical Insurance Company's $20,000 offer should be examined for the components it includes and omits. A medical-bill review does not, by itself, establish the value of the entire injury claim. Reduced past charges, future treatment, lost income, and legally recoverable pain and suffering require their own evidentiary analysis.

Florida Statutes section 768.0427 expressly recognizes future medical expenses and specifies relevant cost evidence. A completed operation is therefore not a universal prerequisite to considering anticipated surgical costs. A recommendation supported by the medical history, causation evidence, likelihood of treatment, and appropriate cost information presents a different case from a speculative possibility of surgery.

Similarly, pain and suffering should not be assigned zero merely because it does not appear on a medical invoice. In covered motor-vehicle claims, however, Florida's threshold for noneconomic damages must be considered. Permanency and the other qualifying injury categories in section 627.737(2) can be important.

Counsel should ask whether Typical Insurance Company disputes the recommended procedure, its relationship to the crash, the likelihood it will occur, its anticipated cost, or another identified issue. Preserve any statement that management requires surgery first. A reasonable medical dispute and an inflexible internal payment rule are different explanations, although neither the low offer nor the statement alone proves bad faith.

Treatment decisions should be made for medical reasons. A claimant should not undergo surgery merely to satisfy an insurer's settlement practice. The task is to document the injury and evaluate the insurer's response to the evidence available at the time.

How Long Does an Insurance Company Have to Respond to a Settlement Demand

A demand can request prompt consideration without automatically ending the settlement opportunity on day 30. For example, the demand to Typical Insurance Company might state:

“We look forward to your prompt consideration of the enclosed evidence and an amicable resolution of this claim. Please provide your substantive response within 30 days of this letter. If you believe additional information is reasonably necessary to evaluate liability or damages, please identify the specific information requested and explain its relevance promptly.”

This language requests a substantive response and encourages identification of genuine information gaps. It does not state that the offer expires after 30 days or that a missed response deadline automatically establishes bad faith.

A shorter tender deadline is not inherently improper, but it cannot erase an applicable 90-day liability safe harbor. A qualifying tender within the statutory period may provide protection even if the insurer missed an earlier demand deadline. Whether a settlement offer remained open or a contract was formed is a separate issue.

The claimant's conduct also matters. Section 624.155(5) addresses good faith in supplying information, making demands, setting deadlines, and attempting settlement. A factfinder may reasonably reduce bad-faith damages for a failure to meet that duty. It does not create a separate cause of action against the claimant or attorney. Make the requested settlement achievable, answer reasonable questions, and document the reasons for any requested extension.

An Offer a Tender and a Settlement Are Different Events

The safe harbor uses the word “tenders.” An insurer's statement that it is reviewing the claim, requesting settlement authority, or considering an offer is not itself the tender described in the statute. A smaller offer also does not satisfy the amount requirement merely because it was made before day 90.

For example, if the applicable limit is $100,000 and the supported demand is $60,000, the statutory comparison points to $60,000. If the demand is $250,000 under that same $100,000 limit, it points to $100,000. These examples assume the stated limit actually applies and that other statutory requirements are satisfied.

The tender documents still deserve careful review. Preserve the check, payment instructions, cover letter, proposed release, and evidence of delivery. Questions about payment conditions, payees, or release language can affect whether a particular tender qualifies and whether a settlement agreement exists. The statute does not supply a universal release form or resolve every tender dispute.

A claimant should not ignore a tender because an earlier deadline passed. Promptly identify any concern and communicate it in writing. Silence can make the record less clear for everyone involved.

What to Review Before Signing an Insurance Release

A policy-limits payment may be important even when it does not compensate the injury fully. The release of liability determines which claims and parties the claimant gives up in exchange for that payment.

Consider a hypothetical crash involving both a negligent driver and a separately negligent business. A release naming every person or entity connected with the accident could affect the business claim. Similarly, broad language concerning all insurance benefits could raise questions about a separate UM claim. The actual wording requires review.

If an underinsured-motorist claim remains, section 627.727(6) establishes a procedure for notifying applicable UIM insurers of a proposed liability settlement and protecting subrogation rights. It includes a 30-day response period following receipt of the prescribed notice. Do not assume that accepting the driver's liability limits automatically preserves every UM right.

A UM insurer's payment under its own coverage also should not be assumed to release the at-fault driver personally. The parties, consideration, and agreed release terms must support the intended settlement.

Review lien obligations, indemnity language, and any requested waiver of bad-faith rights before signing. A settlement that preserves one claim can still extinguish another if its release language is broader than intended.

What Happens if the Insurance Company Does Not Tender Within 90 Days

Missing the qualifying tender period means the insurer cannot rely on that tender safe harbor. It does not automatically establish bad faith, require payment of unlimited damages, or make every bad-faith lawsuit ready to file on day 91.

The underlying issues still require proof. Was there coverage? Could and should the insurer have settled? What did it know about liability and damages? What settlement opportunity existed? Did the alleged mishandling cause recoverable harm? Which procedural requirements apply to the proposed statutory or common-law claim?

Section 624.155(4)(b) also restricts use of the statutory safe-harbor period and the protection a timely tender would have provided as evidence in an action seeking to establish bad faith. Missing the period does not give the insurer a blanket excuse for earlier handling, but the evidence must comply with that provision.

An excess judgment is a familiar setting for third-party bad-faith litigation. A claim for additional compensation beyond the policy benefits requires proof of the applicable legal elements; it does not arise automatically because a deadline passed. Other legally recognized ways of resolving or establishing the underlying exposure can require separate analysis. An injured claimant should continue developing the injury case while counsel evaluates whether an additional bad-faith claim can mature.

The 60 Day Civil Remedy Notice Is a Separate Process

A Civil Remedy Notice, or CRN, is the statutory notice used under section 624.155(3). It must identify the alleged violations with specificity and satisfy the statutory and Department of Financial Services requirements. Relevant information includes the provisions violated, facts, involved individuals, and relevant policy language where required. The statute contains an exception concerning policy language for a third-party claimant whose written policy request was not fulfilled.

For the cure provision, the statute measures 60 days from the insurer's receipt of the department's notice. A properly calculated cure date therefore requires more than noting when the claimant clicked “submit.” Timely payment or correction of the circumstances giving rise to the violation can prevent the statutory bad-faith action.

The 60-day cure period and the 90-day liability safe harbor have different triggers. They may overlap; they are not automatically consecutive periods totaling 150 days. Filing a CRN also does not eliminate other requirements for a ripe bad-faith action.

A CRN is required for the statutory pathway. It is not a universal prerequisite to every common-law third-party bad-faith claim. Which pathway applies should be determined before preparing the notice or complaint.

Why a 30 Day Response Request and a 60 Day CRN Do Not Automatically Perfect Bad Faith

Assume Typical Insurance Company responds around day 30 with the reduced offer and the surgery-before-limits explanation. Counsel may evaluate whether the documented handling supports a Civil Remedy Notice and, if so, file a specific, legally sufficient notice. A low offer alone is not enough to assume a statutory violation.

The two calendars must then be tracked separately. The liability safe harbor is measured from actual notice accompanied by sufficient supporting evidence. The CRN cure period is measured from the insurer's receipt of the department's notice. A request for a response measured from the letter's date does not control either statutory trigger.

If the supported claim was received at the beginning of the example and the insurer receives the DFS notice approximately 30 days later, the periods may end close together. They do not necessarily expire on the same date. A later DFS delivery or a dispute about when sufficient evidence arrived can change the comparison.

Counsel might receive a limits tender shortly before one or both periods expire. That tender must be evaluated promptly for its amount, timing, conditions, and the applicable protection. The fact that suit has not yet been filed does not make the tender ineffective, and filing the underlying suit does not by itself defeat an otherwise qualifying safe-harbor tender.

If no qualifying tender or cure occurs, expiration may preserve the opportunity to pursue bad-faith relief once the remaining requirements are satisfied. It does not mean that 30 days plus 60 days automatically produces a ripe or proven bad-faith claim. Coverage, the underlying exposure or damages, insurer conduct, causation, and the applicable procedural requirements still matter.

UM Insurance Lowball Offers and Bad Faith in Florida

Uninsured and underinsured motorist claims seek benefits under coverage protecting the injured insured. They should be analyzed as first-party claims rather than automatically treated as the at-fault driver's liability-insurance claim. The 90-day subsection expressly concerns liability-insurance claims; a UM claim requires analysis of its own coverage and the applicable first-party authorities.

A low UM offer may reflect a dispute over fault, causation, permanency, available coverage, or damages. Compare the insurer's explanation with the evidence it received. Ask which facts or records supposedly justify the valuation and address a genuine information gap with supporting proof.

In Vest v. Travelers Insurance Co., 753 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court distinguished the insurer's obligation to evaluate and pay in good faith from the later maturation of a bad-faith cause of action. Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016), explains the insured's right to a determination of liability and the full extent of damages in the underlying UM action before the subsequent bad-faith litigation. An excess UM verdict does not itself prove that the carrier acted in bad faith.

If Typical Insurance Company instead provides the injured person's UM coverage, a similar 30-day request and CRN schedule can be used as an office workflow. The legal analysis remains first-party UM analysis. The liability safe harbor should not automatically be imported into that claim, and expiration of the CRN cure period does not independently establish entitlement to benefits, the extent of damages, or bad faith. For coverage, investigation, and litigation issues, see our Hollywood uninsured motorist lawyer guide.

Multiple Injured People Can Change the Settlement Process

A crash may injure several people whose claims collectively exceed the available coverage. Section 624.155(6) provides a separate protection tied to notice of competing claims exceeding available limits. Within the statutory period, an insurer may use the specified interpleader procedure or make the limits available through binding arbitration agreed to by the insurer and third-party claimants. Arbitration is not simply imposed unilaterally on an unwilling claimant.

For example, three seriously injured occupants may be competing for a $100,000 per-accident limit. Each person's demand must account for the other claims and the actual policy structure. The first person to send a demand is not automatically entitled to the entire per-accident limit.

Interpleader does not eliminate the insurer's duty to defend its insured. An arbitration resolution under this provision also has statutory release consequences. These procedures need to be evaluated separately from an ordinary single-claimant tender.

Personal Injury Protection PIP Claims and Florida Payment Deadlines

Florida is a no-fault state for specified automobile insurance benefits. Personal Injury Protection, or PIP, pays covered losses regardless of fault, subject to the statute and policy requirements. The statutory framework provides up to $10,000 in combined medical and disability benefits, generally paying 80 percent of covered reasonable medical expenses and 60 percent of qualifying lost gross income, subject to applicable limits, deductibles, and other requirements. It also provides a separate $5,000 death benefit.

To qualify for PIP medical benefits, an injured person must receive medical attention through qualifying initial services and care within 14 days after the accident. The available medical benefit also depends on an emergency medical condition determination. The statute provides for up to $10,000 in medical benefits with a qualifying affirmative determination and limits medical reimbursement to $2,500 when a qualifying provider determines there was no emergency medical condition. A file without an affirmative emergency medical condition determination requires additional analysis; it should not be assumed to qualify for the full $10,000 in medical benefits.

PIP benefits generally become overdue if unpaid 30 days after the insurer receives written notice of the covered loss and its amount. The statute includes exceptions and additional rules, including situations where the insurer has reasonable proof it is not responsible for payment. This is not an unconditional rule requiring every submitted charge to be paid within 30 days.

For payment timing, the statute recognizes a valid payment instrument placed in a properly addressed, postpaid United States mail envelope, or delivery if not mailed that way. Merely approving a payment internally is different. This mailing provision, often described as a mailbox rule, concerns the timing of PIP benefit payments; it does not establish when the entire bodily-injury claim must settle.

An itemized denial or partial-payment explanation must identify the charges reduced, omitted, or rejected as required by section 627.736(4)(b). The insurer must also provide the required response contact and claim number. If a clerical error or another alleged error in the claim causes a reduction or rejection, the insurer must supply the itemized specification or explanation of benefits identifying that error. After receiving that explanation, the claimant may choose to resubmit a claim in revised form within 15 days without waiving other payment remedies; the revised claim is treated as a timely submission of written notice.

These PIP rules concern covered benefits. They do not require the at-fault driver's insurer to settle the entire bodily-injury claim within 30 days.

How Long Does It Take to Receive an Insurance Settlement Check in Florida

Under section 627.4265, when a person and an insurer agree in writing to settle a claim, the insurer must tender payment according to the agreement no later than 20 days after settlement. The statute recognizes another payment date provided by the agreement and permits conditioning payment on a mutually agreeable release.

Untimely tender can carry annual interest at a rate of 12 percent from the agreement date. If payment is conditioned on an executed release, interest does not begin until that release is tendered to the insurer. The agreement, release, and delivery dates therefore matter when calculating the payment deadline and any interest owed.

This deadline concerns the insurer's tender of settlement payment. It does not necessarily determine when the claimant receives a final net distribution after trust-account clearance, lien resolution, and other necessary closing work.

What Can You Do if an Insurance Company Delays Denies or Does Not Pay Your Claim

Ask for the specific basis of a denial or reduced offer and for identification of any missing information. Preserve written communications rather than relying on a recollection of telephone calls.

Florida's unfair-claim-settlement-practices statute addresses conduct including inadequate investigation, misrepresentation of coverage, and failures to communicate or explain decisions. Its 30-day coverage or investigation provision is qualified by the insured's written request and completed proof-of-loss statements. It is not a universal 30-day settlement deadline running from every initial claim submission.

Maintain a file showing the progression of the claim. Include the evidence supporting damages, settlement proposals, requests for information, responses, tenders, and draft releases. If documents are unavailable, explain why and identify efforts to obtain them. When negotiating with insurance companies, this record helps a lawyer assess both the insurer's handling and the claimant's cooperation.

When to File the Underlying Injury or UM Lawsuit

An underlying personal injury lawsuit or UM benefits lawsuit must be distinguished from a later bad-faith lawsuit. Counsel may decide to file the underlying action while settlement discussions and a CRN process continue, provided the requirements for that action are satisfied. A decision to wait must account for the applicable limitations period and any other necessary conditions.

In the hypothetical, counsel could file the negligence action around the requested 30-day response date while preparing a supported CRN. Typical Insurance Company would then evaluate the pending litigation and the alleged claims-handling violations at the same time. In another case, counsel might continue negotiations until the independently calculated notice periods conclude. Neither schedule is a universal requirement.

These choices depend on the insurer's actual response, the evidence, coverage, litigation costs, and the client's objectives. Filing earlier does not automatically establish bad faith or cancel an applicable tender protection. Waiting does not guarantee that the carrier will tender. The relevant tender and cure dates must still be preserved.

An office may also adopt an earlier internal filing target, such as one year from the date of loss, to prevent prolonged negotiations from consuming the available time. That is a case-management practice rather than Florida's universal filing deadline. It may accelerate the decision to file, but special requirements and any shorter applicable deadlines must be addressed independently.

Do Not Let Settlement Negotiations Consume the Lawsuit Deadline

Florida generally provides a two-year limitations period for negligence causes of action accruing after March 24, 2023. That deadline is different from the deadlines and accrual rules governing insurance-contract or bad-faith claims. A four-year period measured from the injury is not a reliable universal rule for suing an insurer.

Section 624.155(4)(c) provides an additional 90 days for any applicable statute of limitations when the insurer fails to make the qualifying tender within the period. Section 624.155(3)(e) separately addresses tolling for an action under that section. Whether a particular extension applies must be evaluated before relying on it. Negotiations themselves do not automatically extend a deadline.

HB 837's applicability also requires care. Its general filing-date provision and protection for rights under earlier insurance contracts mean that accident date alone does not answer every question. An older policy or claim history may require a separate analysis.

Discuss a Delayed Insurance Settlement With a Hollywood Car Accident Lawyer

Daniel B Reinfeld, PA represents injured people in Hollywood, Broward County, and South Florida. Dan's background includes insurance-defense work and more than 25 years of litigation experience. A Florida insurance attorney can review whether a delay concerns the underlying injury claim, payment of agreed benefits, or potential bad faith. If an insurance company is delaying payment, disputing a supported demand, or presenting a release you do not understand, bring the policy information, medical records, demand, delivery confirmations, and insurer correspondence to the consultation. Those materials help identify the coverage, relevant deadlines, and next steps.

Read our Hollywood car accident lawyer guide or call (954) 923-6110 to discuss your claim.