Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox

Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox

Opinion

 [*817]  WELLS, J.

This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Cox, 943 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In its decision, the district court ruled upon the following question, which the court certified to be 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?

Fla. Farm Bureau, 943 So. 2d at 847. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons explained below, we answer the certified question in the negative and quash the decision of the First District below.

FACTS

On September 16, 2004, Hurricane Ivan struck the Florida Panhandle. The Coxes' home was considered a total loss and suffered both wind and flood damage. The Coxes had a homeowners' policy valued at $ 65,000 with Florida Farm Bureau Casualty  [**3] Insurance Company (Florida Farm Bureau), which provided protection from losses caused by wind damage but did not include losses based on flood damage. ¹ The Coxes made a policy limits demand of $ 65,000, plus additional coverage for personal property and other additional provisions for a total of $ 117,000. Florida Farm Bureau inspected the home and asserted that the wind caused $ 11,583.93 of the damage to the home, the storm caused an additional $ 3,227.14 worth of damage to other structures, and the Coxes were entitled to $ 2000 for living expenses. After tendering all amounts it claimed that it owed to the Coxes under the policy, Florida Farm Bureau filed a complaint to seek declaratory relief, asserting that the loss was caused primarily by flooding. The Coxes counterclaimed for breach of contract and a violation of the Valued Policy Law (VPL). The Coxes filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, relying on Mierzwa v. Florida Windstorm Underwriting Ass'n, 877 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). After reviewing the facts to which both parties admitted, the trial court granted the Coxes' motion, finding that "the holding in Mierzwa is controlling and binding" and that under Mierzwa's  [**4] interpretation of the VPL, the VPL does not require that a covered peril be the peril causing the entire loss so long as a covered peril caused some of the loss. Florida Farm Bureau appealed this decision to the First District Court of Appeal.

On appeal, the First District reviewed the statute and the Mierzwa decision, and in a split decision (with Judge Polston dissenting), adopted Mierzwa's interpretation of the statute:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.