THERESE SLAYTON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY 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.
The court held that the insurer's payment of its estimate minus the deductible, with an offer to consider supplemental claims, was consistent with the policy terms and that the appellant's statutory argument was not preserved.
[1] An insurance policy provision limiting the insurer's liability for repair or replacement costs to the lesser of policy limits, replacement costs for like construction, or…
[2] An appellate court will not consider an argument that was not preserved in the lower court.
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 intelligenceThe homeowner's insurance policy provided for replacement cost settlement. After a windstorm damaged the home, the insurer estimated repair costs and …
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 Replacement Cost Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
Therese Slayton appeals from the entry of a directed verdict in favor of Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”) on her breach of contract claim. The trial court concluded that Slay-ton did not establish that the insurer had failed to comply with the terms of the insurance policy in question. We affirm.
It is undisputed that on April 15, 2009, Universal issued a homeowner’s insurance policy to Slayton covering her Orlando home. The policy provided that the covered property losses to buildings would be settled as follows:
b. Buildings under Coverage A or B at replacement cost without deduction for depreciation, subject to the following:
(1) If, at the time of loss, the amount of the insurance in this policy on the damaged building is 80% or more of the full replacement cost of the building immediately before the loss, we will pay the cost to repair or replace, after application of deductible and without deduction for depreciation, but not more than the least of the following amounts:
(a) The limit of liability under this policy that applies to the building;
(b) The replacement cost of that part of the building damaged for like construction and use on the same premises; or
(c) The necessary amount actually spent to repair or replace the damaged building.
On July 25, 2009, Slayton’s home suffered damage from a windstorm. Universal *936estimated that the cost of repair would be $28,915.87. Slayton, however, submitted an estimate prepared by a public adjuster for $61,638.00.
Universal subsequently tendered a check to Slayton in the amount of $27,915.87, the total of Universal’s estimate minus the $1,000.00 deductible. On February 10, 2010, Universal notified Slay-ton in writing that “the amount of $27,915.87 does not necessarily constitute a full and final settlement of your claim for damages associated with your claimed loss” and that Slayton could “submit supplemental claims for any damages discovered in the covered reconstruction and repair of the above mentioned property.”
Slayton negotiated the check but did not submit any supplemental claims to Universal. Instead, on March 29, 2010, she filed the instant lawsuit and the case ultimately proceeded to trial.
At the conclusion of Slayton’s case, Universal moved for a directed verdict arguing, inter alia, that its decision to pay the amount of its estimate (less the deductible) and then consider supplemental claims for additional damages discovered during or arising from the repairs was consistent with the terms of its insurance policy. That argument had merit. The insurance provision cited above unambiguously limited Universal’s liability for the replacement or repair costs to the lesser of the policy limits, the replacement costs for like construction and use, or the necessary amounts actually spent to repair or replace.
On appeal, Slayton argues that the provisions cited above violated section 627.7011, Florida Statutes (2009).1 Specifically, section 627.7011(3) states:
(3) In the event of a loss for which a dwelling or personal property is insured on the basis of replacement costs, the insurer shall pay the replacement cost without reservation or holdback of any depreciation in value, whether or not the insured repairs the dwelling or property.
We decline to address Slayton’s argument because the limited record provided to us reflects that this argument was not preserved below. See Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass’n v. Robbins, 914 So.2d 925, 928 (Fla.2005) (“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.” (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985))).
Our decision does not preclude Slayton from submitting supplemental claims to Universal. It does preclude Slayton from recovering for attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing the action below or for this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 225 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…significantly higher than its initial payment, Tower Hill fully complied with the policy because its payment was based on the estimate prepared by its independent adjuster. In support, Tower Hill relies on Slayton v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). As in this case, the underlying action in Slayton was for breach of contract, resulting from a disagreement over claim estimates. Following property damage suffered in a windstorm, Ms. Slayton, the insured homeowner, submitted…
-
Latonya Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 224 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…loss, if any, have [*262] not crystallized for assertion as a cause of action for breach. Finally, we reject Tower Hill’s argument to the trial court and to us that this record is governed by Slayton v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Slayton held that an insurer’s payment of its own adjuster’s estimate less the deductible (and agreeing to consider “supplemental claims for additional damages discovered during or arising from' the repairs”) was not itself a br…
-
Rizo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 133 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ity of supplemental claims or payments. The payment checks were not marked “in full and final payment,” for example. The 2006 payments evidence performance under the insurance policy, not a breach. See Slayton v. Universal Prop. & and Cas. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Measuring the five-year limitations period from the alleged 2010 breach regarding her supplemental claim, Ms. Rizo’s lawsuit was timely and was not barred. The final summary judgment below is thus reversed and remanded for furt…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2005)