CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
THOMAS UEBERSCHAER, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether Citizens Property Insurance Corporation's enabling statute precluded application of the Valued Policy Law when windstorm (covered peril) and flood (excluded peril) combined to cause total loss. The Court quashed the First District's decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of its earlier Cox decision, which held that the Valued Policy Law does not require payment of face amount when an excluded peril significantly damages property.
The Court did not reach the merits but instead remanded the case to the First District for reconsideration in light of the Court's decision in Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox, which held that the Valued Policy Law does not require payment of face amount when an excluded peril significantly damages property.
[1] The Valued Policy Law requires an insurance carrier to pay the face amount of the policy for a total loss to a building, even if the damage is caused in part by a covered…
[2] A court may quash a lower appellate court's decision and remand for reconsideration in light of a subsequent, controlling supreme court ruling.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“DOES THE ENABLING STATUTE FOR CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, § 627.351(6), FLA. STAT. (2004), PRECLUDE AN AWARD OF POLICY LIMITS UNDER THE VALUED POLICY LAW, § 627.702(1), FLA. STAT. (2004), WHEN THE COVERED PERIL OF WINDSTORM AND THE EXCLUDED PERIL OF FLOOD COMBINE TO PRODUCE A TOTAL LOSS TO THE INSURED PROPERTY?”
The certified question of great public importance presented to the Court for review
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUeberschaer's property suffered damage from both windstorm (a covered peril under the Citizens Property Insurance policy) and flood (an excluded peril…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Ueberschaer, 956 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES THE ENABLING STATUTE FOR CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, § 627.351(6), FLA. STAT. (2004), PRECLUDE AN AWARD OF POLICY LIMITS UNDER THE VALUED POLICY LAW, § 627.702(1), FLA. STAT. (2004), WHEN THE COVERED PERIL OF WINDSTORM AND THE EXCLUDED PERIL OF FLOOD COMBINE TO PRODUCE A TOTAL LOSS TO THE INSURED PROPERTY?
Id. at 491-92. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. At the time the First District issued its decision in Ueberschaer, another of its decisions certifying the following related question was already pending review in this Court:
DOES SECTION 627.702(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (2004), REFERRED TO AS THE VALUED POLICY LAW, REQUIRE AN INSURANCE CARRIER TO PAY THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY TO AN OWNER OF A BUILDING DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS WHEN THE BUILDING IS DAMAGED IN PART BY A COVERED PERIL BUT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED BY AN EXCLUDED PERIL?
See Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox, 943 So. 2d 823, 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), quashed, 967 So. 2d 815 (Fla.2007). We therefore stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Cox, in which we ultimately quashed the First District’s underlying Cox decision and answered the question certified in that case in the negative. See Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox, 967 So. 2d 815 (Fla.2007). We then accordingly issued an order directing respondent to show cause why this Court should not exercise jurisdiction in the present case, quash the Ueberschaer decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Cox. Upon consideration of respondent’s response and petitioner’s reply thereto, we have determined to so proceed.
We thus grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the First District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Cox.
It is so ordered. LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mallett, 7 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…t of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which, a premium has been charged and, paid.” § 627.702(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). Id. at 820 (italics in original); see also Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ueberschaer, 979 So. 2d 929 (Fla.2008). The summary judgment on appeal is expressly contrary to the holding in Cox, and accordingly, we reverse that part of the summary judgment granting the Malletts additional compensation for the damage sustained to their residence not solel…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Hamilton, 43 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding home that sustained damage during hurricane was a total loss because of building official’s determination that structure had to conform to building code rules in effect when repairs were made), rev’d on other grounds, 979 So. 2d 929 (Fla.2008). Assuming arguendo Citizens could show error in the admission of this evidence, no prejudice is apparent. We find no reasonable probability that the substantial damage determination — attributing the loss to flood — influenced the jury’s…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ueberschaer, 981 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…[*1266] UPON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PER CURIAM. Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate in Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Ueberschaer, 979 So. 2d 929 (Fla.2008), which quashed and remanded our opinion in Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Ueberschaer, 956 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), we have reconsidered the merits of this case under the principles announced in Florida Farm Bureau Casualty I…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. COX, 967 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2007)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. COX, 943 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ueberschaer, 956 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)