Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of Florida
July 3, 2013, Decided
[*435] PARIENTE, J.
The issue in this case concerns the scope of replacement cost insurance coverage under the applicable provisions of the 2008 Florida Statutes. In Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., 99 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), the Third District Court of Appeal concluded that Florida Peninsula Insurance Company was not required by either its replacement cost homeowner's insurance policy or the applicable provisions of section 627.7011, Florida Statutes (2008), to pay Amado Trinidad, its insured, costs for [**2] a general contractor's overhead and profit because Trinidad did not repair or contract to repair the damage to his home.1 We accepted jurisdiction on the basis that the Third District's decision in Trinidad expressly and directly conflicts with the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Goff v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co., 999 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.2
For the reasons more fully explained below, ] we hold that an insurer's required [*436] payment under a replacement cost policy includes overhead and profit, where the insured is reasonably likely to need a general contractor for the repairs, because the insured [**3] would be required to pay costs for a general contractor's overhead and profit for the completion of repairs in the same way the insured would have to pay other replacement costs he or she is reasonably likely to incur in repairing the property. Because section 627.7011, Florida Statutes (2008), and the replacement cost policy in this case, did not require the insured to actually repair the property as a condition precedent to the insurer's obligation to make payment, the insurer was not authorized to withhold, pending actual repair, its payment for replacement costs, which is measured by what it would cost the insured to repair or replace the damaged structure on the same premises if the insured were to do so. Accordingly, we quash the Third District's decision below, which impermissibly allowed Florida Peninsula to single out overhead and profit from other replacement costs and withhold payment for only those costs, and direct that this case be remanded to the trial court to determine whether Trinidad is reasonably likely to need a general contractor for the repairs that encompass his covered loss.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
121 So. 3d 433 *; 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1379 **; 38 Fla. L. Weekly S 507; 2013 WL 3333823
AMADO TRINIDAD, Petitioner, vs. FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Prior History: [**1] Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions. Third District - Case No. 3D10-1087. (Dade County).
Trinidad v. Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co., 99 So. 3d 502, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist., 2011)
replacement cost, repair, overhead, insured, costs, depreciation, actual cash value, replace, general contractor, covered loss, coverage, damaged, incur, insurance policy, unambiguous, damaged property, required to pay, contractor's, spent, premises, withhold payment, provisions, expenses, terms, damaged building, plain language, holdback, spend
Insurance Law, Property Insurance, Homeowners Insurance, Personal Property, Coverage, Replacement Costs, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Policy Interpretation, Question of Law, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Real Property, General Overview, Plain Language