STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
ARNOLD A. ONDIS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
The Florida Supreme Court granted review of a certified question from the First District Court of Appeal regarding the Valued Policy Law and quashed the lower court's decision, remanding for reconsideration in light of a prior ruling in Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox.
The Court granted review, quashed the decision under review, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Court's prior decision in Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox.
[1] The Valued Policy Law does not require an insurance carrier to pay the face amount of a policy for a total loss when the damage is caused in part by a covered peril and s…
[2] A court may quash a lower appellate court's decision and remand for reconsideration based on a subsequent, controlling supreme court ruling.
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 intelligenceThe First District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance: whether the Valued Policy Law requires payment of the face amount …
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 Valued Policy Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Ondis, 962 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES SECTION 627.702(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (2004), REFERRED TO AS THE VALUED POLICY LAW, REQUIRE AN INSURANCE CARRIER TO PAY THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY TO AN OWNER OF A BUILDING DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS WHEN THE BUILDING IS DAMAGED IN PART BY A COVERED PERIL BUT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED BY AN EXCLUDED PERIL?
Id. at 926. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. At the time the First District issued its decision in Ondis, another of its decisions certifying the same question was already pending review in this Court. See Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox, 943 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), quashed, 967 So. 2d 815 (Fla.2007). We therefore stayed the proceedings in this case pending disposition of Cox, in which we ultimately quashed the First District’s underlying Cox decision and answered the certified question in the negative. See Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox, 967 So. 2d 815 (Fla.2007). We then accordingly issued an order directing respondents to show cause why this Court should not exercise jurisdiction in the present case, quash the Ondis decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Cox. Upon consideration of respondents’ response and petitioner’s reply thereto, we have determined to so proceed.
We thus grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the First District Court for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Cox. Petitioner’s pending motion to lift stay and for leave to brief remaining issue is hereby denied.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Hamilton, 43 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…maged to the extent that ordinances or regulations in effect prohibit or prevent the building’s repair, such that the building has to be demolished.” State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Ondis, 962 So. 2d 923, 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), rev’d on other grounds, 979 So. 2d 930 (Fla.2008). Although Citizens argues in hindsight that the mobile home was a total loss by any definition, Citizens did not concede this point at trial-the interrogatory verdict form used in this case asked the jury to determine whether “damages ca…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. COX, 967 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2007)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. COX, 943 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Ondis, 962 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)