2016

41 Fla. L. Weekly D1047e
197 So. 3d 72

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole loss — Trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion to require insureds to enter into contract for subsurface repairs before entering money judgment — Interest — Trial court erred in awarding insureds prejudgment interest where there was no indication in the record that the jury was determining the amount of loss for a date other than the date of the verdict

41 Fla. L. Weekly D509a
190 So. 3d 1092

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claim — All-risk policy with sinkhole loss coverage endorsement — Action by insureds against insurer for breach of contract by denying coverage for sinkhole claim — Causation of loss — Jury instructions — Trial court erred in instructing jury that insurer was required to prove that no portion of insureds’ loss was sinkhole related — In first-party claims involving multiple perils, factfinder must apply the efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine the cause of loss — Jury must determine which peril was the most substantial or responsible factor in the loss — If the efficient proximate cause of the loss is a covered peril, the loss is covered; if it is an excluded peril, the loss is not covered

41 Fla. L. Weekly D918d
197 So. 3d 70

Insurance — Sinkhole loss — Trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion to require insureds to enter into contract for subsurface repairs before entering money judgment

41 Fla. L. Weekly D448a
198 So. 3d 730

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claims — Trial court erred in awarding money damages payable to homeowners without recognizing insurer’s right under policy to withhold payment for cost of subsurface repairs until homeowners entered into contract for those repairs — Insurer’s initial denial of coverage for the claim after determining that it was not a covered loss did not amount to total breach of contract such that insurer could no longer rely on policy restrictions on insurer’s obligations to pay for cost of repair for subsurface damages — Trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest where request for prejudgment interest was first raised after jury returned its verdict, and there was no indication that the jury was determining amount of loss for any date other than the date of the verdict

41 Fla. L. Weekly D2384a
201 So. 3d 1243

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claim — Breach of contract — Initial denial of sinkhole claim and subsequent extension of coverage after insureds filed suit and neutral evaluator confirmed sinkhole damage

41 Fla. L. Weekly D885b
194 So. 3d 411

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole claim — Trial court did not err in denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict on insureds’ breach of contract claim where parties had a bona fide dispute about the method and means necessary to perform subsurface repairs — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insureds for full amount of subsurface repairs without first requiring insureds to enter into a contract for the repairs — Notwithstanding any breach by insurer, the policy provisions regarding withholding payment for subsurface repairs remained in effect — Prejudgment interest — Trial court erred in awarding insureds prejudgment interest from the date of their claim rather than from the date the proceeds would have been due under the policy — Trial court erred in awarding insureds prejudgment interest on cosmetic damage award where record reflects that when insureds filed suit, the only credible estimate insurer had for cosmetic damage was the amount of the estimate prepared by its adjuster, which insurer had tendered to insureds

41 Fla. L. Weekly D2350c
202 So. 3d 115

Insurance — Homeowners — Sinkhole loss — Appeals — Where appellate court concluded in prior appeal that policy unambiguously excluded sinkhole damage, held that it was error for trial court to deny insurer’s motion for summary judgment, and directed trial court to enter judgment in favor of insurer, trial court failed to comply with mandate when it refused to enter judgment in favor of insurer on remand — Motion to enforce mandate granted

41 Fla. L. Weekly D2033b
199 So. 3d 495

Insurance — Homeowners — Res judicata — Insured’s action against insurer to recover damages for plumbing leak is barred by res judicata where court had entered summary judgment for insurer in a prior suit for the same damages on the basis that insured lacked standing based on insured’s assignment of her insurance benefits to a remediation company

41 Fla. L. Weekly D2322a
209 So. 3d 14

Insurance — Homeowners — Property damage — Replacement cost policy — Trial court erred in finding as matter of law that replacement cost policy required insurer to replace damaged kitchen cabinets as matter of law — Under both governing statute and insurance policy at issue, insurer may limit its liability to reasonable and necessary cost to repair damaged, destroyed, or stolen covered property — Trial court erred in ruling that payment for general contractor’s overhead and profit was required as matter of law where there remained disputed issues of fact as to whether a general contractor would be necessary to repair damage — Trial court abused its discretion when it struck all insurer’s witnesses because they were not general contractors where there were disputed issues of fact as to whether damaged kitchen cabinets could be repaired and whether contractor was reasonably necessary — Trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting inquiry into a second leak that occurred after initial water damage to kitchen cabinets, notwithstanding claim by insured’s expert that the second leak did not impact his opinion regarding amount of loss — Remand for new trial

41 Fla. L. Weekly D1289a
204 So. 3d 460

Insurance — Homeowners — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law when it abated insured’s action against insurer for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, filed after public adjuster hired by insured disputed scope of repairs proposed by insurer’s contractor and insurer denied coverage because insured failed to sign insurer’s contractor’s work authorization — Abatement order precluded insured from obtaining determination as to whether insurer properly exercised policy’s right to repair clause and, if so, what parties’ rights and obligations are under that clause — Moreover, homeowner is entitled to dispute scope of repairs before the repairs are completed