Florida’s Second District Court docket of Enchantment issued an opinion yesterday in Brito v. Residents Property Insurance coverage Company that could be a vital win for policyholders. 1 On the heart of the case was a dispute over how damages must be measured and introduced to a jury when an insurer has outright denied protection for a loss. The court docket’s ruling reversed a directed verdict that had been entered in favor of Residents, holding that the trial court docket misapplied Florida regulation by limiting the policyholders to precise money worth damages and excluding important knowledgeable testimony.
The case arose when the policyholders filed a declare with Residents Property Insurance coverage Company for wind harm to their dwelling’s roof. Residents denied the declare fully, asserting the harm was brought on by put on and tear, which is excluded below the coverage. The householders then filed go well with for breach of contract, alleging they had been entitled to the total alternative price of the harm below the phrases of their insurance coverage coverage and Florida Statute § 627.7011. As a part of their proof, they introduced knowledgeable testimony to ascertain the character of the harm and the price of repairs.
Dennis James, a licensed normal and roofing contractor, was a key knowledgeable witness for the policyholders. He was retained to evaluate the harm and supply an estimate for the required repairs. Using industry-standard software program, James calculated each the alternative price worth and the precise money worth of repairs for numerous elements of the house, together with the roof and inside rooms. His estimate was based mostly partially on findings from the policyholders’ engineering knowledgeable, who had decided that the roof wanted to get replaced attributable to intensive harm and compliance with Florida Constructing Code necessities. Nevertheless, the trial court docket, agreeing with Residents’ movement in limine, restricted his testimony to precise money worth and excluded the total estimate doc from proof as a result of it included alternative price values. Following the trial, the policyholders appealed.
On enchantment, Residents argued that below the coverage and state regulation, alternative price protection was solely payable after the insureds really accomplished the repairs and incurred these prices. They contended that as a result of the policyholders had not performed the repairs previous to trial, they had been restricted to recovering solely precise money worth. Residents additional maintained that any estimate, together with matching prices or code upgrades, was outdoors the scope of the coverage’s protection. They relied closely on the Third District’s choice in Vazquez v. Residents, 2 which restricted recoverable damages in a case the place the insurer had accepted protection however disputed the quantity.
In distinction, the policyholders’ appellate temporary leaned on the Third District’s ruling in Residents v. Tio, which held that when an insurer has denied protection outright, it can not then use the coverage’s fee timing provisions to restrict the insured’s restoration at trial. 3 They argued that the loss ought to have been adjusted on a alternative price foundation from the outset and that the trial court docket’s choice to exclude proof of these prices disadvantaged them of their rights below the coverage and Florida regulation.
The Second District Court docket of Enchantment sided with the policyholders, reversing the trial court docket’s ruling. It held that the trial court docket erred in limiting the measure of damages to precise money worth and in excluding Dennis James’s estimate. The court docket emphasised that each the coverage and the statute apply to “lined losses” and that when an insurer has denied protection fully, it can not depend on coverage provisions about timing of funds to restrict the insured’s proper to current proof of alternative prices in a breach of contract motion. The court docket explicitly aligned with the reasoning in Tio and authorized battle with the Fourth District’s more moderen choice in Qureshi, 4 which had taken the other method.
In a concurring opinion, Choose Atkinson added that the insurer’s argument was logically flawed. He defined that damages in a breach of contract case are supposed to place the injured celebration within the place they might have been in had the contract not been breached. On this context, that features each precise money worth and the alternative price protection the insurer would have paid had it acknowledged protection. He rejected the notion that the insureds needed to first full repairs out-of-pocket earlier than looking for these damages, notably when the insurer had refused to acknowledge the declare in any respect. Whereas he expressed some hesitation about making use of the doctrine of prevention, he strongly agreed with the broader precept that denial of protection can’t be used as a defend to restrict damages at trial.
This choice is a transparent affirmation of the rights of Florida householders below alternative price insurance policies. It reinforces that insurers who deny protection can not later depend on technical provisions to slender the damages a jury could take into account. It additionally acknowledged the significance of knowledgeable testimony in presenting a complete image of loss and damages, and reestablishes the precept that justice shouldn’t be contingent on a policyholder’s capacity to finance repairs earlier than securing the advantages for which they paid. For policyholders, this holding is a step in the precise path when insurers fail to honor their guarantees.
Thought For The Day
“The key of change is to focus your entire vitality not on combating the outdated, however on constructing the brand new.”
—Dan Millman
1 Brito v. Residents Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 2D24-664 (second DCA June 18, 2025).
2 Vazquez v. Residents Prop. Ins. Corp., 304 So. 3d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
3 Residents Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Tio, 304 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA).
4 Common Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Qureshi, 396 So. 3d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024).