SERVANDO VAZQUEZ AND SILVIA VAZQUEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTHERN FIDELITY PROPERTY & CASUALTY, INC., 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 challenged their insurance company's initial payment on a homeowners' insurance claim under a replacement value policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer, but the appellate court reversed, holding that when there is a genuine dispute about the actual cash value amount, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Summary judgment may not be granted in favor of the insurance company where there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the amount of actual cash value, the insurer has indicated it will not make additional payments unless repairs are made, and the homeowners have challenged whether the insurer paid the actual cash value required by the policy and statute.
[1] Under Florida law, an insurance company must pay the actual cash value of a loss under a replacement value policy, not merely its own estimate of that value.
[2] Summary judgment is improper when a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding the actual cash value of a loss under an insurance policy.
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“Section 627.7011(3) requires payment of actual cash value—not merely the insurance company's estimate of actual cash value.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that insurers must pay actual cash value, not their estimate thereof
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceServando and Silvia Vazquez filed an insurance claim under a replacement value homeowners' policy with Southern Fidelity Property & Casualty, Inc. The…
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 Actual Cash Value cases and more on FLexlaw
Servando and Silvia Vazquez are homeowners who brought actions for breach of contract and declaratory relief against their insurance company, Southern Fidelity Property & Casualty, Inc. The trial court entered a final summary judgment against the homeowners and in favor of the insurance company. We reverse under the authority of Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Co., No. 3D16-1861, 225 So.3d 974, 2017 WL 3722502, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12424 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 30, 2017), Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Insurance Co., 224 So.3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), and Milhomme v. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Co., No. 3D16-2089, 227 So.3d 724, 725, 2017 WL 4158850 at *1, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 13322 at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 20, 2017). In doing so, we note the trial court did not have the benefit of these decisions when it entered the final judgment at issue.
Based on the 2011 amendments to section 627.7011(3), Florida Statutes, if the homeowner files a claim under a replacement value policy, the insurance company is required to initially pay the actual cash value and is required to pay additional amounts up to replacement value only as work is performed and repair expenses incurred. Ch. 2011-39 § 19, Laws of Fla.
Here, the insurance company estimated the actual cash value of the losses to be $773.37. Meanwhile, the homeowners’ public adjustor estimated the actual cash value of the losses to be over $30,000. The insurance company paid the homeowners *1243$773.37 and sent a letter indicating that no further payments would be made unless and until repairs were made in excess of the amount paid. At that point, the homeowners sued. The insurance company moved for summary judgment arguing it had performed its responsibilities under the policy and the statute by paying its estimate of actual cash value. In opposition, the homeowners filed the affidavit and estimate of their public adjustor. The trial court agreed with the insurance company and entered final judgment against the homeowners. This was error.
Section 627.7011(3) requires payment of actual cash value—not merely the insurance company’s estimate of actual cash value. Where, as here, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the amount of actual cash value, the insurance company has sent the homeowners a letter indicating it does not intend to make any additional payments unless and until repairs are made, and the homeowners have brought an action challenging whether the insurance company paid actual cash value as required by the policy and statute, summary judgment may not be granted in favor of the insurance company. See Siegel, No. 3D16-1861, 225 So.3d 974, 2017 WL 3722502, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12424; Francis, 224 So.3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Milhomme, No. 3D16-2089, 227 So.3d at 725, 2017 WL 4158850 at *1, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 13322 at *3.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldberg v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Glendys Vazquez (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…action. Ms. Vazquez also moved for directed verdict on the declaratory action relying upon this Court’s opinion in Servando Vazquez v. Southern Fidelity Property & Casualty, Inc., which was released during the pendency of Ms. Vazquez’s case below. 230 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). In Servando, this Court held: “Section 627.7011(3) requires payment of actual cash value—not merely the insurance company’s estimate of actual cash value.” Id. at 1243. Pursuant to Servando, the trial court entered judgment in…1 / 2
-
Glendys Vazquez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…action. Ms. Vazquez also moved for directed verdict on the declaratory action relying upon this Court’s opinion in Servando Vazquez v. Southern Fidelity Property & Casualty, Inc., which was released during the pendency of Ms. Vazquez’s case below. 230 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). In Servando, this Court held: “Section 627.7011(3) requires payment of actual cash value—not merely the insurance company’s estimate of actual cash value.” Id. at 1243. Pursuant to Servando, the trial court entered judgment in…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- Rhulien Milhomme and Marie Milhomme v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 227 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)