ANGELA M. RIZO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM FLORIDA 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.
Ms. Rizo appealed a summary judgment dismissing her breach of contract claim against her homeowner's insurer as time-barred. The court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations for a supplemental insurance claim runs from the date of the alleged breach of that claim, not from the date of the initial loss or first payment.
The statute of limitations for a supplemental claim runs from the date the supplemental claim is denied or breached, not from the date of the original loss or the date of payment on the initial claim. Ms. Rizo's July 2011 lawsuit was timely because it was filed within five years of her October 2010 supplemental claim submission.
[1] A statute of limitations for breach of a property insurance contract does not begin to run from the date of initial payments if those payments do not indicate a final set…
[2] The five-year statute of limitations for a breach of an insurance contract begins to run from the date of the alleged breach, not necessarily from the date of the loss or…
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“On this record, the complaint did not allege any breach of the insurance policy until 2010. The January and April 2006 payments did not anticipatorily preclude the possibility of supplemental claims or payments.”
Establishes that the initial payments were not a complete resolution and do not start the limitations clock for supplemental claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Rizo suffered a loss from Hurricane Wilma in October 2005. State Farm made initial payments on her claim in January and April 2006, neither of whi…
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 Accrual Of Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
An insured homeowner, Ms. Rizo, appeals an adverse final summary judgment in a circuit court suit against her insurer, State Farm. The summary judgment was predicated on State Farm’s affirmative defense that Ms. Rizo’s claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2010).1 The pertinent dates are:
• October 2005 — date of loss (Hurricane Wilma);
• January and April 2006 — payments by the insurer on the initial claim;2
• October 2010 — Ms. Rizo’s additional claim submitted to State Farm, but not adjusted or paid; and
*1115• July 2011 — Ms. Rizo’s lawsuit for breach of contract filed.
State Farm argued, and the trial judge agreed, that the five-year limitations period began to run no later than the last payment (April 2006), such that the July 2011 lawsuit was barred. This appeal followed.
On this record, the complaint did not allege any breach of the insurance policy until 2010. The January and April 2006 payments did not anticipatorily preclude the possibility 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 further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
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)…atute in effect in 2009, the required-payment was more demanding. See supra note 2. . In addition to Slayton, Tower Hill relies on Luciano v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 156 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) and Rizo v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 133 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). In both cases, the insureds brought breach of contract actions against their respective insurers for failure to pay supplemental claims. The circuit courts in both cases granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers on statut…
-
Luciano v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 156 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ade. Therefore, the checks issued by United in 2006 merely evidence performance under the insurance policy and United’s alleged breach did not occur until United denied the claim for roof replacement in 2010. See Rizo v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 133 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Given that this action was commenced in 2011, the Homeowners’ lawsuit was timely. The final summary judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Nieve and Marisol Linares v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 141 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…eriod for property insurance claims by specifying that such actions begin to run from the date of loss. § 95.11(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2011). That amendment to section 95.11(2) does not apply retroactively to this case. Rizo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 133 So. 3d 1114 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citing Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Devon Neighborhood Ass’n, Inc., 67 So. 3d 187 (Fla.2011)).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Devon Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc., 67 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 2011)
- Therese Slayton v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)