NORTH POINTE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MIGUEL TOMAS AND FRANCINE TOMAS, APPELLEES
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.
North Pointe Insurance Company appealed an order confirming an appraisal award and awarding prejudgment interest from the date of loss in a homeowners' insurance dispute. The court affirmed, holding that because North Pointe initially denied coverage before later agreeing to appraisal, it waived the policy's deferred payment provision and became liable for prejudgment interest from the date of loss under Lugassy.
North Pointe is liable for prejudgment interest from the date of loss because its initial denial of coverage caused it to waive the policy provision allowing deferred payment. Once an insurer denies coverage, even if it later agrees to appraisal and pays, it is deemed to have waived the policy's deferred payment provision.
[1] An insurer that denies coverage for a claim and is later found liable is responsible for prejudgment interest from the date of the loss, notwithstanding policy provisions…
[2] An insurer's denial of coverage waives policy provisions for deferred payment, making the insurer liable for prejudgment interest from the date of the loss.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Once the insurer denies coverage, it is deemed to have waived the policy provision for deferred payment and, should it pay, becomes responsible for prejudgment interest from the date of loss.”
Establishes the core legal principle that a denial of coverage waives the insurer's right to delay interest accrual under the policy's deferred payment provision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Tomases claimed under their North Pointe homeowners' policy for damage to a marble kitchen floor caused by dropping a pot on October 23, 2005. Nor…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confirmation Of Appraisal Award cases and more on FLexlaw
North Pointe Insurance Company (“North Pointe”) appeals an order confirming an appraisal award and entitlement to prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees in favor of Miguel and Francine Tomas (“the Tomases”). We affirm. Under the controlling authority of Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Lugassy, 593 So.2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), we conclude that the trial court did not err in confirming the arbitration award and awarding prejudgment interest from the date of the loss.
The Tomases made a claim with their homeowners’ insurance carrier, North Pointe, for a complete replacement of a marble kitchen floor damaged as a result of dropping a pot on October 23, 2005. After investigating the claim, North Pointe determined that the loss was excluded under the policy and denied coverage. The Tomases filed a petition to compel appraisal under the terms of the homeowners’ policy. In a letter dated September 5, 2007, North Pointe withdrew its previous denial of the claim, admitting coverage and stipulating to attorney’s fees up to the date of receipt of the letter. The claim went to appraisal and North Pointe paid the claim on May 14, 2008. On June 10, 2008, an appraisal award was entered in the amount of $115,899.52, including prejudgment interest from the date of the loss. The Tomases moved to confirm the appraisal award and for entry of final judgment. The trial court granted the motion to confirm the appraisal award, including attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest from the date of the loss.
North Pointe argues on appeal that the trial court erred in confirming the arbitration award before the contractual sixty-day period to make payment had expired and therefore that prejudgment interest should have been awarded from the date of payment, which it had already made.1 Based on Lugassy, we disagree.
In Lugassy, the question was from what date prejudgment interest starts to run where the insurer denies coverage and is later held liable for the claim. Id. at 570. The general rule is that interest on a loss payable under an insurance policy is recoverable from the date payment is due pursuant to the provisions of that policy. Lugassy carved out an exception to that rule where the insurer denies coverage and later admits coverage or coverage is later determined through litigation. Once the insurer denies coverage, it is deemed to have waived the policy provision for deferred payment and, should it pay, be*979comes responsible for prejudgment interest from the date of loss. “[I]f the insurer denies liability, interest begins to run from the date of the loss, even where the policy provides for payment at a later date.” Du-gassy, 593 So.2d at 572.
North Point denied coverage for the claim. Even though it later agreed to appraisal and paid the appraisal award, it is deemed to have waived the policy provision allowing deferred payment and is responsible for prejudgment interest from the date of the loss. See Lugassy; accord, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Albert, 618 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding that prejudgment interest is payable from the date of the loss); see also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alvarez, 785 So.2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (making distinction that, where there is no denial of coverage, prejudgment interest is payable from date of appraisal as opposed to date of the loss). We affirm the trial court’s order confirming the appraisal award and awarding prejudgment interest from the date of loss.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jugo v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 56 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…interest on a dispute that went to appraisal after the insurance carrier had made an initial payment on a claim. On appeal, Jugo maintains that the trial court should have instead followed this Court’s ruling in North Pointe Insurance Co. v. Tomas, 16 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). In North Pointe, an insurer denied coverage of a homeowner’s claim (for the complete replacement of a marble kitchen floor) from the outset, maintaining that the loss was excluded under the policy. Id. at 978. Only after the ins…
-
Green v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 59 So. 3d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…e appraisal award, it waived the policy provision allowing for deferred payment on the claim. Moreover, once that provision was waived, the claim became due from the date of loss and interest would be due from that date. N. Pointe Ins. Co. v. Tomas, 16 So. 3d 977, 978-79 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“Once the insurer denies coverage, it is deemed to have waived the policy provision for deferred payment and, should it pay, becomes responsible for prejudgment interest from the date of loss.”). We have recently held th…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Avill James, 376 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…2d 570, 571–72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). Because of this, an insured is entitled to prejudgment interest “where the insurer denies coverage and later admits coverage or coverage is later determined through litigation.” N. Pointe Ins. Co. v. Tomas, 16 So. 3d 977, 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “Once the insurer denies coverage, it is deemed to have waived the policy provision for deferred payment and, ---PAGE 4--- should it pay, becomes responsible for prejudgment interest from the date of loss.” Id. at 978–…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Indep. Fire Ins. Co. v. Jacques Lugassy and Debra Lugassy, 593 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Albert, 618 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Mellado v. Europa Cruises Corp., 785 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alvarez, 785 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)