RYAN ESCOBAR, APPELLANT,
v.
TOWER HILL SIGNATURE 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.
Ryan Escobar appeals a summary judgment in favor of his insurer, Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company, regarding an insurance claim for dwelling loss. The court reverses, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the actual cash value of the insured loss, and remands for trial.
An insurer cannot unilaterally determine actual cash value or replacement cost value as a matter of law by simply paying its own independent adjuster's estimate less the deductible. Where genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the actual cash value of the insured loss, summary judgment is inappropriate.
[1] An insurer must initially pay at least the actual cash value of the insured loss, less any applicable deductible, when a dwelling is insured on the basis of replacement c…
[2] Genuine issues of material fact regarding the actual cash value of an insured loss preclude summary judgment in favor of an insurer.
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“the insurer must initially pay at least the actual cash value of the insured loss, less any applicable deductible”
Establishes the statutory requirement for insurers in replacement cost coverage cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEscobar, the insured, filed a claim with Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company for a loss to his dwelling that was insured on a replacement cost basi…
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
ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
Ryan Escobar, the plaintiff below, appeals an order granting final summary judgment in favor of his insurer, Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company. Upon Tower' Hill’s commendable confession of error, and because genuine issues of material fact exist as to the amount of the actual' cask value of the insured loss at hand, we reverse the final summary judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. See § 627.7011(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“In the event of a loss for which a dwelling ... is insured on the basis of replacement costs ... the insurer must initially pay at least the actual cash value of the insured loss, less any applicable deductible.”); Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 3D16-1861, 225 So.3d 974, 978, 2017 WL 3722502, at *4 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 30, 2017) (reversing final summary judgment in favor of Tower Hill, concluding “[w]e find no support in Slayton[ v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 103 So.3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ]—or any other authority Tower Hill cites—for the proposition that the insurer is able 'to unilaterally determine, as a matter of law, actual cash value or replacement cost value” by simply paying its own independent adjuster’s estimate of the insured loss, less the deductible) (footnote omitted); Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 224 So.3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (reversing final summary judgment in favor of insurer where “widely-divergent estimates of covered repair costs created a *1085genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment regarding the roof leak claims,” expressly rejecting insurer’s argument that its payment of its own adjuster’s estimate less the deductible entitled it to summary judgment under Slay-ton).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 225 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Latonya Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 224 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Therese Slayton v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)