Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Amat
198 So. 3d 730
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Homeowners Amat and Leon reported suspected sinkhole damage to their house in June 2011; Citizens hired an engineer (MEG) and denied the claim, and the homeowners obtained a contrary opinion (FTE) and sued.
- At trial a jury found Citizens failed to prove the loss was caused solely by excluded perils and awarded a single, general damage amount ($169,665.77) that matched counsel’s closing-requested line items (grouting, underpinning, cosmetic repairs).
- Trial court entered judgment for the homeowners and later amended it (accounting for a scrivener’s error and a $2,500 deductible credit) but awarded full subsurface repair costs as a lump-sum money judgment and prejudgment interest.
- Citizens appealed, raising four issues: (1) whether the court could order payment for subsurface repairs absent the homeowners’ contract to perform those repairs; (2) whether prejudgment interest was proper; (3) whether the deductible was applied; and (4) whether the sinkhole endorsement made sinkhole a named peril shifting burdens of proof.
- The sinkhole endorsement tracks section 627.707(5)(b), providing that subsurface (below-foundation) repair costs are payable only after the insured enters a contract for such repairs and permitting progress payments as work is performed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May court enter a money judgment requiring payment for subsurface repairs absent an insured contract? | Homeowners: Citizens waived/forfeited right to enforce payment-conditional language by breaching coverage; judgment may award full repair costs. | Citizens: Policy conditions (must enter contract before subsurface payments) control timing/method of payment; court must enforce them. | Reversed in part: trial court erred; insurer may withhold payment for subsurface repairs until insured enters contract per endorsement. |
| Are homeowners entitled to prejudgment interest on the jury’s award? | Homeowners: (implicit) award fixes damages and prejudgment interest should run. | Citizens: Jury liquidated claim as of verdict, so prejudgment interest not proper where amount fixed at verdict date. | Reversed: prejudgment interest award was erroneous. |
| Was the policy deductible applied? | Citizens sought deductible credit. | Homeowners opposed. | Affirmed as to deductible: trial court’s amended judgment gave Citizens $2,500 credit. |
| Does the sinkhole endorsement make sinkhole a named peril, shifting burden to Citizens to prove excluded peril? | Citizens argued endorsement creates named-peril coverage so burden rests on insurer to prove excluded cause. | Homeowners argued otherwise. | Rejected: Court followed prior precedent that endorsement does not alter burden; Citizens’ argument lacked merit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mejia v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 161 So. 3d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (endorsement/burden issue resolved against insurer)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Munoz, 158 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (same)
- McKee v. Tower Hill Select Ins. Co., 151 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (insurer may withhold subsurface payment until insured contracts for repairs)
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985) (when verdict fixes damages as of prior date, prejudgment interest may run)
- Six L's Packing Co. v. Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 268 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (waiver/estoppel doctrine generally not applicable to matters of coverage)
- Rector v. Larson's Marine, Inc., 479 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (total-breach principles and remedies contrasted with coverage denials)