Florida Judge Strikes Defendant’s Pleadings for “Fraud Upon the Court” After Concealing Insurance Coverage
Osceola County, Florida — In a significant sanction ruling, a Florida circuit court judge struck the pleadings of a corporate defendant after finding clear and convincing evidence of fraud upon the court stemming from the intentional concealment of insurance coverage. The ruling results in a global settlement of $18 Million, $6 Million above policy limits.
The decision underscores the serious consequences businesses face for violating Florida’s insurance disclosure laws, particularly in high-stakes wrongful death and premises liability cases.
The Case: Wrongful Death at an Osceola County Short-Term Rental
The ruling arises from litigation handled by Pedro Echarte of The Haggard Law Firm, representing Lorrie Brown, whose son was tragically shot and killed outside a short-term rental property in Osceola County.
(Echarte standing with client Lorrie Brown and co-counsel)
Brown filed suit over the circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting at the Airbnb-style property, alleging liability tied to the management and operation of the premises.
Court Finds Intentional Concealment of Insurance Coverage
In a February 11, 2026 order, the court found that ICON Management Services, Inc. engaged in a deliberate and prolonged effort to conceal the existence of insurance coverage.
For more than two years, ICON repeatedly represented to opposing counsel that no insurance coverage existed.
However, evidence presented during a two-day evidentiary hearing revealed:
- ICON was a subsidiary of Troon.
- The company had potential coverage under Troon’s general liability insurance policy.
- Internal emails and testimony confirmed that corporate officials and legal counsel were aware of the policies.
- The company failed to comply with Florida Statute § 627.4137, which requires disclosure of insurance information upon request
Repeated Requests Ignored for Over Two Years
According to the court’s findings, plaintiff’s counsel made multiple requests for insurance disclosure over approximately two and a half years.
Despite these requests, ICON consistently maintained that no insurance coverage existed.
The judge rejected arguments that the failure to disclose was due to confusion or oversight, instead concluding that:
The defendant knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the existence of insurance coverage.
Strategy Aimed at Forcing Lower Settlement
The court further determined that the concealment was a calculated litigation strategy designed to:
- Lead the plaintiff to believe that only limited coverage (through a homeowners association policy) was available
- Restricted the plaintiff’s ability to evaluate the full scope of recoverable damages
- The court found this conduct directly undermined the integrity of the judicial process.
- Disclosure Only Came After New Defense Counsel Appeared
- Critically, the existence of the insurance policy was not revealed until new defense counsel entered the case in 2025.
The new attorneys produced the insurance information within days, a fact the court cited as further evidence that prior nondisclosure was intentional—not accidental.
Sanction: Pleadings Stricken, Case Moves to Damages Trial
As a result of these findings, the court ruled that ICON committed fraud upon the court and imposed one of the most severe sanctions available:
- Striking the defendant’s pleadings
- Allowing one of the cases to proceed to a trial on damages only This means liability is effectively established, and the focus shifts solely to determining the amount of damages owed.
$18 Million in Exposure Across Related Cases
The ruling also impacted a second case handled by The Haggard Law Firm involving the same defendant and similar insurance issues.
Combined, the two matters settled globally for:
- $18 million dollars.
- Including about $6 million dollars above the available insurance policy limits
Why This Ruling Matters in Florida Personal Injury Litigation
This case highlights critical legal principles that affect personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits in Florida, including:
- Mandatory Insurance Disclosure
Under Florida Statute § 627.4137, defendants must disclose insurance coverage upon request. Failure to do so can result in severe sanctions.
- Fraud Upon the Court
Intentional deception that interferes with the judicial process—such as concealing key financial information—can lead to:
- Striking of pleadings
- Default judgments
- Significant financial exposure
- Impact on Settlement Negotiations
Accurate insurance disclosure is essential for fair settlement discussions. Concealment can:
- Mislead plaintiffs
- Distort case valuation
- Delay justice
Statement from The Haggard Law Firm
Pedro Echarte of The Haggard Law Firm emphasized that the ruling sends a clear message:
Companies that fail to comply with Florida’s insurance disclosure requirements—especially in high-exposure cases—risk severe consequences, including losing their ability to defend themselves in court. – Pedro Echarte, The Haggard Law Firm
Contact The Haggard Law Firm
If you or your family has been affected by wrongful death, negligent security, or premises liability, The Haggard Law Firm has extensive experience holding corporations accountable for misconduct.
Contact us today to learn more about your legal rights and options.
Legal DisclaimerThis blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading or interacting with this content. Legal outcomes depend on the specific facts and applicable law, and results may vary. You should not act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
