Florida insurers, often on the receiving end of insureds’ complaints – in the court
s and in the news media – may take heart from a new ruling by a Florida appeals court, which draws a bold line under insureds’ responsibilities after a loss.
The 1st District Court of Appeals on Wednesday overturned a $541,257 jury award against Homeowners Choice Property and Ca
sualty Insurance Co., noting that the Perdido Key homeowners did not give pro
per notice on part of the claim in 2020. Thomas and Rebecca Clark also offered no proof of the loss of rental value, did little to protect the
home from further damage a
fter the storm, and did not show how the insurer failed to pay actual cash value on the claim, the court said.
“We reverse because the Clarks failed to present sufficient evidence that t
lue of the insured loss or the replacement cost of the damaged property,” Judge Thomas Winokur wrote in the March 19 opinion.
Lawyers for Tampa-based Homeowners Choice could not be reached for comment Wednesday. But another Florida insurance defens
e attorney said the ruling underscores the fact that an insurance policy is indeed a contract, and insureds are often obligated to comply if they
want payment on a claim.
See more beautiful photo albums Here >>>
“The focus of the court’s decision is really on whether the insured’s breaches of the post-loss conditions were material, which the court o
bviously did find the breaches to be material,” Fort Lauderdale attorney Michael Packer, of the Marshall Dennehey law firm, said in an email.
“And, according to the decision, there were a number of failures by the insured to comply with their post-loss duties,” said Packer, who was not
involved in the case.
The case began in 2020, after Hurricane Sally, a Category 2 storm, blew throug
h northwest Florida. The Clarks quickly notified Homeowners Choice of the Coverage A damage to the vacation house, including a roof that was torn off, missing siding, and water damage inside.
Homeowners Choice, part of the HCI Group and sister company to TypTap Insurance, Tailrow, CORE, and other companies, responded within two days, reminding the Clarks that they must make reasonable repairs to protect the property from fur
her damage and must list personal items that were compromised, the court explained. Within a month, the insurer sent an adjuster, who estimated the loss at $76,634. That was considered actual cash value (replacement value minus depreciation). HCI sent a check for $59,656 (the incurred loss minus the depreciation and the deductible).
The Clarks cashed the check, used the money to pay for roof and siding repairs – but never provided receipts or invoices as required by the policy, the court noted.
The residents then decided to hire a public adjuster, who claimed a $440,000 loss for the dwelling. The estimate, which came 10 months after the storm, gave the same figure for ACV and RCV, with no depreciation amount. The public adjuster also estimated a nearly $58,000 loss on contents and, again, did not distinguish between ACV and RCV. He then claimed a $43,000 loss for the period when the property was unavailable to rent out.
Perhaps to be sure, HCI hired a well-known engineering firm to re-inspect everything. Still, the parties never reached an agreement on the total loss, an appraisal panel was not summoned, and the Clarks filed suit for breach of contract. HCI asked the trial court for a directed verdict on the grounds that the family had failed to provide evidence that the loss was greater than what the insurer had provided. The trial judge declined, and after a trial, the jury granted the half-million-dollar award based largely on the public adjuster’s estimates.
On appeal, the appellate judges reversed and sided with the insurer’s lawyers on almost all points. The court pointed out that the Clarks tarped the roof after the storm but waited six months to hire a contractor to make the roof and siding repairs, a delay that worsened mold problems inside the home. The public adjuster’s reports came 10 months after the storm, which was not a very prompt notice, the court suggested.
