Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Insurance Co.
224 So. 3d 259
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Latonya Francis sued Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company after rainwater leaked into her home's interior from roof problems in April 2015; Tower Hill paid for interior repairs based on its appraiser’s actual cash value (ACV) estimate, less deductible and depreciation.
- Tower Hill informed Francis the payments were ACV and that she could submit proof of completed repairs to recover depreciation or submit supplemental claims for damages discovered during repairs.
- Francis’s public adjuster submitted two sworn statements of proof of loss with line-item estimates totaling over $139,000 (after deductibles); Tower Hill’s appraiser estimated approximately $15,000 (after deductible).
- Francis used Tower Hill’s payments to repair the roof rather than the interior and later sued for breach of contract, claiming Tower Hill underpaid ACV for interior damage.
- Tower Hill argued it properly paid ACV, Francis never completed repairs or submitted valid supplemental claims for depreciation or roof damage, and any roof-damage claim would be excluded as “wear and tear.”
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Tower Hill; the appellate court reviewed de novo and considered the competing adjusted estimates, coverage notice letters, and adjuster notes about pending roof evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tower Hill underpaid the ACV for interior damage | Francis: Tower Hill’s ACV payment was insufficient given her sworn proof-of-loss estimates; recoverable depreciation was preserved | Tower Hill: It paid ACV per its appraiser; payment less deductible and depreciation was proper and not a breach | Reversed summary judgment — genuine dispute of material fact exists due to large disparity between estimates |
| Whether Francis’s use of payment to repair the roof precludes recovery for interior damage or depreciation | Francis: She relied on insurer’s notice that supplements could be submitted and attempted to pursue repairs; she preserved claim for depreciation | Tower Hill: Because Francis didn’t complete claimed interior repairs or follow claim procedures, she’s not entitled to more | Court found triable issues whether ACV adjustment/payment and right to depreciation were properly handled; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Francis asserted a proper, liquidated roof-damage claim | Francis: Alleges damage to building generally; contends roof damage claim was raised in communications and adjuster notes left open possible supplement | Tower Hill: No written, detailed roof claim was ever made; adjuster later found deterioration (wear and tear) — exclusion applies | Court held Francis had not presented a proper detailed written roof claim for breach; coverage and extent of roof loss not yet crystallized; summary judgment on roof damage also reversed insofar as it addressed roof issues |
| Whether Slayton controls to bar Francis’s claim | Francis: Preserved statutory/related arguments distinguishing Slayton | Tower Hill: Slayton permits insurer’s payment of its own estimate and supplementation without breach | Court rejected Tower Hill’s reliance on Slayton because Francis preserved arguments not considered in Slayton; Slayton not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Ins. Co., 121 So. 3d 433 (Fla. 2013) (insurer may pay ACV now and allow insured to recover depreciation upon proof of repair)
- Slayton v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (insurer’s ACV payment and reservation to consider supplements not necessarily a breach)
- Rocamonde v. Marshalls of Ma, Inc., 56 So. 3d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (summary judgment review requires viewing evidence and inferences in favor of nonmoving party)