REGENCY BAPTIST TEMPLE, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, 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.
Regency Baptist Temple appealed a directed verdict judgment awarding it only the replacement cost of the collapsed roof portion rather than the cost to replace the entire roof as required by municipal ordinance. The court affirmed, holding that the insurance policy's exclusion for losses occasioned by ordinance enforcement precluded coverage for the additional reconstruction costs.
The court held that the policy exclusion for losses "occasioned directly or indirectly by enforcement of any local or state ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair or demolition of buildings or structures" properly excluded coverage for the additional costs required by the municipal ordinance to replace the entire roof, and the insurer was liable only for the replacement cost of the actually damaged portion.
[1] An insurance policy exclusion for loss occasioned by the enforcement of ordinances regulating construction, repair, or demolition is generally enforceable.
[2] An insurance policy exclusion for loss occasioned by the enforcement of ordinances regulating construction, repair, or demolition does not conflict with statutes unless a…
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“the amount payable was "the replacement cost of the property damaged or destroyed at the time of loss without deduction for depreciation," which amount was paid, and that insurance did not extend to expenditures necessary under the ordinance to rebuild the improperly constructed portion of the roof that did not collapse.”
States the trial court's conclusion on the proper measure of recovery under the policy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRegency's roof, which was improperly installed with trusses upside down, partially collapsed under standing water. The insurer paid benefits for repla…
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
SMITH, Judge.
Regency appeals from a judgment entered on a directed verdict entered at the close of Regency’s case against its insurer for the difference between benefits paid for partial collápse of Regency’s roof and a greater amount which Regency asserts was its insured loss. Part of the roof collapsed under standing water because the entire roof was installed with trusses upside down. A settlement was made on the basis of replacing the collapsed portion, whereupon, pursuant to municipal ordinance, the city declined to issue a building permit for repair unless the entire roof was replaced.
The trial court properly concluded that, under the policy, the amount payable was “the replacement cost of the property damaged or destroyed at the time of loss without deduction for depreciation,” which amount was paid, and that insurance did not extend to expenditures necessary under the ordinance to rebuild the improperly constructed portion of the roof that did not collapse. The policy explicitly excluded coverage for loss “Occasioned directly or indirectly by enforcement of any local or state ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair or demolition of buildings or structures.”
The policy exclusion does not conflict with any statute to which our attention has been called. Similar provisions have been upheld in the case of partial loss. 15 G. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law § 54:166, p. 419 (2d ed. R. Anderson 1966).
The rule is otherwise when, in the case of loss by fire or lightning, such a provision conflicts with Florida’s valued policy law, Section 627.702, Florida Statutes (1975).
Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Fowler, 181 So. 2d 692 (Fla.2d DCA 1966).
The present case should also be distinguished from cases in which an ordinance or regulation prevents repair of a damaged building. In those cases courts have declared the building a “constructive total loss” and held the insurer liable for the building’s entire value. E. g., Feinbloom v. Camden Fire Ins. Co., 54 N.J.Super. 541,149 A. 2d 616 (1959).
Compare Hewins v. London Assur. Corp., 184 Mass. 177, 68 N.E. 62 (1903) in which, as here, an ordinance merely increased the cost of repair. Regency proceeded to trial on a pleaded theory that seems to have assumed Regency was foreclosed by its acceptance of the benefits tendered but for a mistake of fact for which the law could give a remedy. That theory is .unavailing because Regency’s remedy would be no greater had it never accepted the tendered settlement for replacement of the collapsed portion of the roof. No other error appears.
AFFIRMED.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.