50 So. 3d 645
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Ashe’s home was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan (Sept. 16, 2004).
- Ashe held a Citizens wind-only policy ($188,000 limit) and a NFIP flood policy ($225,200).
- Citizens’ policy excludes flood coverage; flood losses pursued under NFIP via USAA.
- Property adjuster valued wind damage at $30,580.32 and total loss at $238,?; Citizens paid $26,770.32 for wind, and flood carrier paid $225,200, totaling $251,970.
- Ashe sought wind-total-loss recovery; trial court applied improperly the Other Insurance clause and discussed a total loss recovery rule.
- On remand, court addressed VPL viability and admissibility of flood insurance evidence; decision ultimately reversed in part and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of Other Insurance clause governs recovery | Ashe argues clause misapplied; flood and wind coverages are different perils. | Citizens argues rule addresses multiple policies on same risk; flood policy is noncovered. | Clause misapplied; not applicable when perils differ; remand for proper consideration. |
| Total loss recovery rule applicability | VPL can require payment if wind caused total loss independent of flood payout. | Total loss rule limits to pre-storm value or policy limits; flood payment may preclude further wind recovery. | Mathis/Cox framework permits VPL to govern total loss, not automatic windfall; summary judgment not proper. |
| Admissibility of flood insurance evidence | Flood coverage and payment are relevant to causation and extent of damage. | Collateral source rule bars admission of flood payment amount to avoid windfall. | Evidence of flood policy existence and payments admissible; amount is limited by ruling on collateral source evidentiary scope. |
| Wind vs flood causation under VPL | Wind alone could cause total loss before surge; VPL applies. | Flood involvement negates wind-only total loss under VPL absent clear wind-total-loss proof. | Court allowed VPL consideration; wind-total-loss claim potentially viable on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mierzwa v. Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association, 877 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (VPL applicability when total loss involves covered and noncovered perils disputed)
- Cox v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 967 So.2d 815 (Fla. 2007) (VPL limited to total loss caused by covered peril; may not apply when noncovered perils contribute)
- Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Mathis, 33 So.3d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (Clarifies VPL interaction with indemnity principles and perils)
- Hamilton v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 43 So.3d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (Collateral source rule limits admissibility of flood payment amounts; existence may be admissible)
- Rease v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 644 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (Collateral source rule relevance to contract claims; benefits may rebut liability theories)
- Hartnett v. Riveron, 361 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (Collateral source rule applicability across tort/contract)