DAVID SANCHEZ AND AMANDA SANCHEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROYAL PALM 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.
Homeowners appeal a partial summary judgment and jury verdict in favor of their insurer, Royal Palm Insurance, concerning coverage for sinkhole damage repairs. The dispute involved disagreement over whether subsurface repairs should follow the insurer's engineer's recommendations (compaction grouting alone) or the homeowners' engineer's recommendations (compaction grouting plus perimeter underpinning). The court reversed the summary judgment on subsurface repairs, finding the case controlled by Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Co.
The court reversed the partial summary judgment on subsurface repairs because the case was controlled by Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Co., which established that there was a material factual issue regarding the proper method of subsurface repair, precluding summary judgment.
[1] An insurer is not obligated to pay benefits for subsurface repairs until the insured enters into a contract for repairs in accordance with the insurer's engineering firm'…
[2] A material issue of fact exists regarding the proper method of subsurface repair when the insured's engineer's opinion conflicts with the insurer's engineering firm's opi…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Royal Palm then moved for partial summary judgment arguing that Florida law and the insurance contract required the Sanehezes to enter into a contract for subsurface repairs in accordance with BCI's recommendations before any insurance benefits were due.”
Establishes Royal Palm's legal position that the insurance contract required compliance with its engineer's recommendations as a condition precedent to coverage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid and Amanda Sanchez's home suffered sinkhole damage and was insured by Royal Palm. Royal Palm's engineer, AMEC-BCI, recommended compaction grouti…
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 Summary Judgment Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
David and Amanda Sanchez appeal a final judgment entered in favor of Royal Palm Insurance Company in the San-chezes’ action for breach of contract. Royal Palm insured the couple’s home when it suffered damage from a sinkhole. The dispute arose after Royal Palm’s engineering firm, AMEC-BCI (BCI), concluded that compaction grouting would be sufficient to repair subsurface damage, whereas the Sanehezes’ engineer concluded that full perimeter underpinning would be necessary in addition to the compaction grouting. Relying on their engineer’s opinion, the Sanehezes entered into a contract for the subsurface repairs with Champion Foundation Repair Systems and submitted the contract to Royal Palm for approval. Royal Palm rejected the contract, and the Sanehezes brought suit.
In the action below, Royal Palm denied it breached the contract, asserting that it had no obligation to pay benefits for subsurface repairs until the Sanehezes entered into a contract in accordance with BCI’s recommendations. Royal Palm then moved for partial summary judgment arguing that Florida law and the insurance contract required the Sanehezes to enter into a contract for subsurface repairs in accordance with BCI’s recommendations before any insurance benefits were due. The Sanehezes submitted the affidavit of *213their engineer in opposition and argued that there was a material issue of fact as to the proper method of subsurface repair. The trial court ultimately agreed with Royal Palm and granted summary judgment.
The case proceeded to trial on the remaining issue of whether Royal Palm was obligated to pay further benefits for above-ground (cosmetic) damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Royal Palm.1
The facts of this case are very similar to the facts of Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Co., 164 So.3d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Indeed, we note that several of the same entities are involved in both cases. And because the arguments in this case are identical to the arguments made in Roker — a point which Royal Palm’s counsel conceded at oral argument — we find that Roker is controlling. Consequently, for the reasons explained in Roker, we reverse the final judgment in part and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, -and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Blaha, 194 So. 3d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ssary to perform the subsurface repairs. The trial court properly submitted that dispute to the jury for determination. We find ho error in the trial court’s refusal to grant Citizens’ motion for directed verdict. Cf. Sanchez v. Royal Palm Ins. Co., 166 So. 3d 212, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reversing, in part a final judgment in favor of the insure er); Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Ins. Co.; 164 So. 3d 690, 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (same). B. The Necessity of a Contract for the Subsurface Repairs Second, Citiz…
-
Case v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 191 So. 3d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…issue of fact regarding the proper method of subsurface repair. Tower Hill concedes error on the basis of this court’s holdings in Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Insurance, Co., 164 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), Sanchez v. Royal Palm Insurance Co., 166 So. 3d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), and Estrada v. Tower Hill Select Insurance Co., 179 Sp.3d.348 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). The trial court did not have the benefit of these decisions when it granted summary judgment to Tower Hill. In Roker, the homeowner filed a breach…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 164 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Rosalyn Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Ins. Co., 164 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)