Miami-based NSI Insurance Group has acquired another Miami-headquartered brokerage, Mutual Insurance Group, adding another milestone for the company that has doubled in size in recent years.
“We are pleased to welcome Mutual Insurance Group to NSI Insurance Group, as we continue to expand our presence across Florida, especially in key vulnerable markets,” said Oscar Seikaly, CEO and chairman of NSI Insurance Group.
Mutual Insurance Group has specialized in auto, homeowners, condo, renters, flood, and commercial coverage needs for people in south Florida and around the state, the firm’s Linkedin page shows. The acquisition by NSI will expand coverage options for Mutual’s client base, Vice President Alex Crespi said in a news release.
Founded in 1958, NSI has continued to grow and now has clients in 50 states and more than 100 countries, NSI said.
The state law (G. L. c. 175, § 113H) governing categories of drivers who have difficulty obtaining coverage because they are high-risk says that insurers are not obligated to provide certain optional coverage to certain categories of drivers, including those convicted of motor vehicle homicide, and those “involved in four or more accidents in which such person has been deemed to be at fault in excess of fifty percent within” the prior three years.
Gondola relies on G. L. c. 175, § 113H to argue that it provides the only exceptions to an insurer’s statutory obligation to provide optional collision and comprehensive coverage. However, she is not suing under that law. Instead she brought breach of contract claims as well as unfair insurance practices claims under the 93A consumer protection law. She bases her claims on Progressive’s refusal to offer optional coverage because of “un undefined, undisclosed binding restrictions,” and on the insurer allegedly misrepresenting the terms of coverage.
Over Progressive’s objection, Judge Squires-Lee found that Gondola has alleged facts sufficient to plausibly suggest violation 93A, which defines unfair insurance practices to include: “misrepresenting the benefits, advantages, conditions, or terms of any insurance policy;” and “misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions” relating to coverages.
“[O]n this record,,” the judge wrote, “I cannot conclude Plaintiff has not stated a straightforward claim under 93A, § 9 where, as alleged, Progressive refused to provide coverage it was obligated by law to offer by misrepresenting its reliance on a ‘binding restriction.'”