Within the latest resolution Marquez v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance coverage Firm, No. 6:23-cv-2025-ACC-DCI, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219390 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2024), the U.S. District Court docket for the Center District of Florida granted the insurer’s movement in limine and excluded proof and testimony concerning substitute price worth of damages, matching, and to restrict damages to direct bodily loss.
Background:
Plaintiffs, Luz Marquez and Gilberto Santiago (“Plaintiffs”), sued Clear Blue Specialty Insurance coverage Firm (“Clear Blue”) for denial of protection below their householders coverage (the “Coverage”) for injury to their residence allegedly attributable to Hurricane Ian. The Coverage contained a provision that acknowledged that “[Clear Blue] can pay not more than the precise money worth of the injury till precise restore or substitute is full…” Clear Blue asserted that the Plaintiffs had not repaired or changed the broken property and so they may solely probably get well precise money worth primarily based on the language of the Coverage and pursuant to Florida Statute § 627.7011(3)(a), which offers that within the occasion of a loss for which a dwelling or private property is insured on the premise of substitute prices, the insurer should initially pay a minimum of the precise money worth of the insured loss, much less any relevant deductible.
Precise Money Worth v. Alternative Price Worth:
In an effort to perceive Clear Blue’s arguments, it is very important talk about the distinction between precise money worth (“ACV”) and substitute price worth (“RCV”).
The precise money worth of the direct bodily loss is usually outlined as “truthful market worth” or “[r]eplacement price minus regular depreciation,” the place depreciation is outlined as a “decline in an asset’s worth due to use, put on, obsolescence, or age”; thus, the distinction between ACV and RCV is that depreciation is withheld from ACV. Goff v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 999 So. second 684, 690 (Fla. second DCA 2008).
The Federal Choice:
Clear Blue filed a movement in limine to exclude proof and argument associated to the RCV calculation of damages and matching damages, and to limit proof to solely gadgets that sustained bodily loss. Clear Blue argued that as a result of Plaintiffs weren’t entitled on this case to cost for repairs or matching prices that they had not but incurred, proof or testimony concerning these issues have to be excluded at trial. Clear Blue additionally argued that the worth of non-damaged gadgets was irrelevant to the precise money worth dedication and didn’t cowl contingent future mismatch, or superior funds for repairs.
The Court docket granted Clear Blue’s movement in limine and held that Clear Blue was obligated to “pay not more than the precise money worth of the injury till precise restore or substitute is full” and excluded proof arguments associated to substitute price worth.
Authorized Implications:
This resolution is vital as a result of in instances the place an insured/plaintiff doesn’t have any proof of repairing or changing broken property, insurance coverage carriers can exclude any substitute price proof from trial which may additional restrict the quantity that an insured/plaintiff can get well.
About The Writer