ALBERTO F. JUGO A/K/A ALBERTO H. FLORES, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
A homeowner sought pre-judgment interest on an appraisal award for additional insurance proceeds following a fire loss. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that pre-judgment interest applies only when an insurer denies coverage, not when the dispute concerns merely the amount of a covered loss.
Pre-judgment interest on a supplemental appraisal award is not applicable when coverage was admitted and the dispute concerned only the quantification of the covered loss, rather than the existence of coverage itself.
[1] Pre-judgment interest on an appraisal award is not recoverable from the date of the loss when the insurer promptly admits coverage and the dispute concerns only the amoun…
[2] An insurer's denial of coverage for all or any part of a claim may warrant the award of pre-judgment interest from the date of the loss.
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“In the absence of some contract provision or statute to the contrary — and none is apparent on this record — the insured is not entitled to pre-judgment interest on the supplemental amount of the appraisal award as computed from the date of the insured loss.”
Establishes the core holding that pre-judgment interest on appraisal awards is unavailable absent a contractual or statutory basis when coverage is admitted but the loss amount is disputed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a November 2006 fire damaged his home, Jugo filed a claim under his homeowner's policy with American Security Insurance Company. American paid $…
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 Appraisal Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
A homeowner, Alberto F. Jugo, appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion for pre-judgment interest on an appraisal award compensating him for an insured loss. The insurer was the appellee, American Security Insurance Company. We affirm.
Background
After a November 2006 fire loss at his home, Jugo filed a claim under the residential homeowner’s policy issued by American. After numerous inspections, in April 2007 American made a payment on the claim in the amount of $46,995.56. Jugo asserted that amount was inadequate and submitted a supplemental claim. American reviewed and denied the supplemental claim on the grounds that the property had been gutted since the time the initial claim was investigated. Jugo filed suit against American in June 2008.
After unsuccessfully seeking to remove the dispute to federal court, American invoked the policy’s appraisal provision. Jugo won an appraisal award for a further $71,307.44, which was paid by American in 30 days. Jugo then filed a motion for prejudgment interest (as measured from the date of the loss in 2006 rather than the date of the award in 2009) on the $71,307.44 portion of the award. The trial court entered an order denying Jugo’s motion, based on our decision in Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide, 15 So.3d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Jugo’s motion for rehearing was denied, and this appeal followed.
Analysis
Our decision in Sunshine State reversed an award of pre-judgment 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 insured homeowner *96filed a petition to compel appraisal did the insurer admit coverage and eventually pay the appraisal award. We held that prejudgment interest from the date of the loss was applicable because the insurer denied coverage for all or any part of the claim. Id. at 979.
In contrast, Sunshine State (as here) involved a homeowner’s claim for which coverage was promptly admitted. The dispute turned on quantifying the covered loss, not the existence of coverage. Sunshine State, 15 So.3d at 749-50. In the absence of some contract provision or statute to the contrary — and none is apparent on this record — the insured is not entitled to pre-judgment interest on the supplemental amount of the appraisal award as computed from the date of the insured loss.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hawks Nest Condo., Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
Hawks Nest Condo., Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ng a portion of the arbitration award constituted a denial of coverage,” as “Sunshine has never denied coverage of Davide’s claim, but rather only disputed the amount to be paid under the policy to satisfy this claim”); Jugo v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 56 So. 3d 94, 95–96 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming denial of prejudgment interest and finding that insured had not denied coverage where “[t]he dispute turned on quantifying the covered loss, ---PAGE 8--- not the existence of coverage”); see also Citizens Pro…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Peipert (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…lber, 72 So. 3d 286, 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“[A]n insured is not entitled to prejudgment interest when an insurer does not deny coverage, participates in the appraisal process, and timely pays the appraisal award.”); Jugo v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 56 So. 3d 94, 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming the denial of prejudgment interest on an appraisal award and finding that the insurer had not denied coverage where “[t]he dispute turned on quantifying the covered loss, not the existence of coverage”); Green v.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide, 15 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- N. Pointe Ins. Co. v. Tomas, 16 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)