CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES STIEBEN AND JESSICA STIEBEN, 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.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appeals a judgment awarding homeowners $233,610.02 for breach of an insurance policy covering sinkhole damage. The court affirmed the underlying liability but reversed the damages award, holding that the insurer's obligation to pay for subsurface repairs must be structured according to the policy's loss settlement provision, requiring payment as work is performed under a repair contract rather than a lump sum to the insureds.
The court affirmed the finding of breach and the Stiebens' entitlement to damages for non-subsurface repairs, but reversed the damages award structure. Citizens is obligated to pay for subsurface repairs only as work is performed pursuant to a subsurface repair contract, not as a lump sum judgment payable directly to the insureds without regard to the loss settlement provision.
[1] A judgment awarding damages for sinkhole repair under a homeowner's insurance policy must comply with the policy's loss settlement provision requiring payment for repairs…
[2] An insurer's obligation to pay for sinkhole repairs is contingent upon the performance of work under a subsurface repair contract.
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“We affirm the final judgment in all respects save for the award of money damages. We reverse to the extent that the trial court entered judgment for damages payable directly to the Stiebens without regard to the policy's loss settlement provision.”
Establishes the court's holding that while liability was affirmed, the damages structure must comply with the policy's loss settlement provision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames and Jessica Stieben held a homeowner's insurance policy with Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The parties disagreed about the appropriat…
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 Homeowner'S Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
BY ORDER OF THE COURT.
Upon consideration of the motion for clarification of July' 6, 2016, decision filed by Appellees on July 18,2016,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted. Accordingly, the opinion dated July 6, 2016, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is substituted therefor. No further motions will be entertained.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation seeks review of a final judgment awarding the insureds, James and Jessica Stieben, $233,610.02 in damages for breach of-a homeowner’s insurance policy. The cause of action arose after the parties disagreed as to the appropriate method of repairing sinkhole damage. We affirm the final judgment in all respects save for the award of money damages. We reverse to the extent that the trial court entered judgment for damages payable directly to the Stiebens without regard to the policy’s loss settlement provision. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Blaha, 194 So.3d 411, 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Amat, 198 So.3d 730, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D448, D450, 2016 WL 670189 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 19, 2016); Tower Hill Select Ins. Co. v. McKee, 151 So.3d 2, 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), review denied, 163 So.3d 511 (Fla.2015). Under this provision, Citizens only has the obligation to pay for repairs as the work is performed *216under a subsurface repair contract. Blaha, 194 So.3d at 413, 41 Fla. L. Weekly at D887; Amat, 198 So.3d at 732, 41 Fla. L. Weekly at D450.
The Stiebens are entitled to an enforceable money judgment in their favor for damages other than subsurface repairs, as conceded by Citizens, as well as a judgment for the subsurface repairs reflecting that Citizens is obligated to pay for repairs as the work is performed pursuant to a subsurface repair contract.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WALLACE and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Omega Ins. Co. v. Wallace, 224 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…he policy’s loss settlement provision which only obligates Omega to pay for subsurface repairs after the insureds enter into a contract and then only obligates Omega to make payment as the work is performed. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Stieben, 200 So. 3d 215, 215-16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Blaha, 194 So. 3d 411, 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Reversed and remanded. LaROSE, C.J., and CRENSHAW, J., Concur. . We note that, after the cause of action accrued in this case, the legislature…
Authorities Cited
- Tower Hill Select Ins. Co. v. McKEE, 151 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ariety Amat and Briceida Leon, 198 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Blaha, 194 So. 3d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)