28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 332a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2804ELIT

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Reasonable emergency measures — Where homeowners policy provides that insurer will not pay more than $3,000 for reasonable emergency measures to protect property from further damage unless insurer provides approval within 48 hours of receipt of request to exceed that limit, insurer fully satisfied its obligation by paying $3,000 to plaintiff that did not submit request to exceed policy limit — No merit to argument that insurer’s failure to respond within 48 hours of receipt of invoice for completed work entitles plaintiff to additional benefits under policy provision that allows insured to exceed $3,000 limit if insurer fails to respond to request to exceed limit within 48 hours

ELITE WATER RESTORATION, INC., a/a/o Olga Lopez, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2019-005867-CC-05, Section CC-06. May 13, 2020. Luis Perez-Medina, Judge.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYINGPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This cause came before the Court on April 6, 2020, on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the Court having heard the argument of counsel, having reviewed the Motions, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, the summary judgment evidence, the pertinent case law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. This matter is hereby dismissed, and Defendant shall go hence without day.

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

On or about October 12, 2017, the home of Olga Lopez (“Insured”) sustained water damage. At the time of the loss, the Insured’s residence was insured by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Defendant”). Elite Water Restoration, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) provided water mitigation services to dry out the property. See Deposition of Janelle Acosta. Prior to providing its services, the Insured assigned her right to collect payment for those services to Plaintiff.

Pursuant to the insurance Policy issued by Defendant, the Insured has a duty to “[t]ake reasonable emergency measures that are necessary to protect the covered property from further damage”. Citizens Dwelling Property 3 — Special Form Policy, CIT DP-3 10 16 at 15. (emphasis added). Under Reasonable Emergency Measures,

a. We will pay up to the greater of $3,000 or 1%¹ of your Coverage A limit of liability for the reasonable costs incurred by you for necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property from further damage, when the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against.

b. We will not pay more than the amount in a. above, unless we provide you approval within 48 hours of your request to us to exceed the limit in a. above. In such circumstances, we will pay only up to the additional amount for the measures we authorize.

If we fail to respond to you within 48 hours of your request to us and the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against, you may exceed the amount in a. above only up to the cost incurred by you for the reasonable emergency measures necessary to protect the covered property from further damage.

* * *

Id. at 5.

On November 21, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an invoice to Defendant for $6,170. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Insured requested prior approval from Defendant to exceed the $3,000 limit for reasonable emergency measures. On January 2, 2018, Defendant paid Plaintiff the policy limit of $3,000.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Defendant moved for final summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff was paid $3,000 which was the policy limit for reasonable emergency measures. Plaintiff countered that since Defendant failed to respond within 48 hours of Plaintiff’s submission of its invoice, they cannot rely on the $3,000 policy limit.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

To render this decision, the Court looks to the interpretation of the insurance contract. When “interpreting an insurance contract,” the Court is “bound by the plain meaning of the contract’s text.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez, 70 So. 3d 566, 569 (Fla. 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly S469a]). “Where the language in an insurance contract is plain and unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in accordance with the plain meaning so as to give effect to the policy as written.” Wash. Nat. Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So.3d 943, 948 (Fla. 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly S616b].

Under the plain language of the Policy, Defendant has fully satisfied its obligation by paying the $3,000 policy limit for reasonable emergency measures. Defendant’s failure to respond within 48 hours of Plaintiff’s submission of its invoice does not entitle Plaintiff to anything other than the $3,000 limit. While Defendant is required to respond, within 48 hours, to a request to exceed the policy limit, it is not required to respond to a demand for payment for work that has already been completed.

Plaintiff contends that the submission of its invoice, demanding payment, is equivalent to a request to exceed the policy limit. This Court disagrees. According to the Policy, Defendant could waive the $3,000 limit if they receive a request to exceed that limit. A request means “to ask for something or for permission or authority to do, see, hear, etc., something; to solicit; and is synonymous with beg, entreat, and beseech.” Request, Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1968). A demand for payment, after the work has been completed, is not the same as asking for permission to exceed the $3,000 limit. A demand for payment of an invoice connotes a claim or a right to that payment while a request to exceed a policy limit is preconditioned on Defendant’s acceptance of the request. Therefore, at a minimum, the request must occur before the work is completed and a final invoice is sent to the insurer. This is the only reasonable interpretation of the Policy which would give an insured the ability to contract for reasonable emergency measures to prevent further loss to the property, while at the same time, allowing the Defendant the ability to authorize additional reasonable measures when needed. See All Insurance Restoration Services, Inc. v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp., No. 2018-000911-sSP-26 (Miami-Dade County, December 12, 2019).

On November 21, 2017, Plaintiff sent Defendant an email with their invoice for services rendered from October 12, through October 17, 2017. Neither the invoice nor the email contained a request to exceed the $3,000 policy limit for reasonable emergency measures. Accordingly, the Court finds that the $3,000 payment tendered by Defendant fully satisfied its obligation under the Policy.

Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1. Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff, Elite Water Restoration, Inc., shall take nothing, and Defendant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, shall go hence without day.

__________________

¹The policy limit for Coverage A is $223,100, which corresponds to $2,231 under the 1% limit.