Jury Backs Insurer in Miami UM Coverage Fraud Dispute
Table of Contents
Case Background
In August 2008, Modesto B. Reynoso and Denisse Fuertes applied for auto insurance with Progressive through Tammy Insurance Agency in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Deborah Gomez, later a Plaintiff in this case, was listed as an additional insured. According to Gomez, Reynoso and Fuertes wanted the same coverage they had with their previous insurer, including uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage.
Gomez alleged that Tammy Cancio and Jessica Cancio, acting for Tammy Insurance Agency, rejected UM coverage without the applicants’ consent by signing or forging Reynoso’s name on the UM rejection form. The policy renewed for years without change.
On September 22, 2021, Gomez was driving when her car was struck by another vehicle driven by Guerda Desravin and owned by Joseph Desravin. Gomez and her daughter, Elise Cisco, were injured. She claimed the at-fault driver was underinsured, making UM coverage essential for compensation. When Gomez sought UM benefits from Progressive, she was told the policy contained none.
Cause that led to the dispute
Gomez’s lawsuit alleged that the insurance agents wrongfully rejected UM coverage without authorization, causing her to lose access to benefits that would have compensated her and her daughter for injuries from the crash. She claimed the signatures on the 2008 and 2010 UM rejection forms were forged. The suit sought a declaration that UM coverage applied, plus damages for breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.
Injury
Gomez said she and her daughter suffered severe and permanent injuries, requiring ongoing medical treatment. She claimed they endured physical pain, mental suffering, lost wages, and diminished earning capacity.
Damages
The Plaintiffs claimed damages well in excess of the at-fault driver’s liability limits, including medical bills, lost income, future medical costs, and compensation for pain and suffering. They also sought attorney’s fees and costs under Florida insurance statutes.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The Plaintiffs argued that no valid written rejection of UM coverage ever occurred, as required by Florida law. They asserted the insurance agents acted without the policyholders’ knowledge or consent and that the rejections were fraudulent.
Progressive denied wrongdoing. It maintained that Reynoso knowingly rejected UM coverage in both 2008 and 2010, signing forms that included clear disclosures stating the rejection would carry forward to future renewals unless changed in writing. Progressive also argued that the Plaintiffs could have reviewed their policy declarations each renewal period and requested UM coverage if they wished.
The defense raised affirmative defenses, including statute of limitations, assumption of risk, comparative negligence, third-party negligence, and set-offs for any amounts recovered from other sources.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Deborah Gomez, individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Elise Cisco, a minor
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): David L. Perkins | John B. Agnetti
Defendant(s): Progressive American Insurance Company| Tammy Insurance Agency, Inc | Tammy Cancio| Jessica Cancio
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Cameron S. Frye | Katie R. Russo | Andrew Kemp-Gerstel | Michael Darren Starks
· Experts for Defendant(s): Nicole Bonaparte | Jonathan Hyde | Geoffrey A. Negin | Dianne C. Flores
Key Arguments by Counsel
Plaintiffs’ counsel emphasized that Florida Statute § 627.727 requires UM coverage unless the named insured personally rejects it in writing. They contended that the policyholders never made such a rejection, and that the forged forms stripped them of important legal rights.
Defense counsel focused on the signed rejection forms, arguing they were genuine and binding. They maintained that the named insureds were aware of the absence of UM coverage for more than a decade and took no steps to change it.
Claims Asserted
The complaint included:
Declaratory Judgment: A court declaration that UM coverage existed under the policy.
Breach of Contract: Against Progressive for not providing UM benefits.
Negligence: Against all Defendants for failing to procure UM coverage.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Against all Defendants for not acting in the insureds’ best interests.
Fraud: Against the agency and its employees for forging the UM rejection forms.
Defense Argument
Progressive and the other Defendants denied all claims, relying on the signed rejection forms as conclusive proof that UM coverage had been declined. They also argued that Plaintiffs failed to file certain claims within the required time and had other sources of recovery.
Jury Verdict
The case went to trial in April 2025. The key question for the jury was whether the signature of Modesto Reynoso on the 2010 UM rejection form was the result of fraud, forgery, trickery, or other extraordinary circumstances.
The verdict ended the case in the Defendants’ favor, leaving Gomez without the additional coverage she sought.
Court Documents