72 F.4th 1223
11th Cir.2023Background
- Gina Signor’s 2014 Lexus was declared a total loss; her Safeco policy promised payment up to the vehicle’s “actual cash value.”
- Safeco used the CCC ONE Market Valuation system: it gathered dealer-advertised prices for 12 comparable vehicles, applied a uniform $1,064 "Uniform Condition Adjustment" deduction to each, averaged the results, then added a $589 component condition upward adjustment, arriving at an actual cash value of $17,966; Safeco paid $18,701.71 after taxes/fees and deducting the $500 deductible.
- Signor purchased a replacement Subaru and paid $899 in dealer fees out of pocket; she disputed Safeco’s valuation (preferring a higher NADA Clean Retail value) and sought reimbursement for dealer fees.
- She sued Safeco (putative class action) alleging breach of contract because Safeco’s valuation methodology violated Florida Statute §626.9743(5) and because dealer fees should be included in actual cash value; the district court granted summary judgment for Safeco.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: it held Safeco’s valuation method complied with §626.9743(5) and that dealer fees were not recoverable under the policy given controlling Florida and Eleventh Circuit precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Safeco’s valuation methodology violated Fla. Stat. §626.9743(5) | Safeco improperly adjusted comparable-vehicle prices (Uniform Condition Adjustment); used advertised rather than actual sale prices; CCC database is not an authorized "generally recognized" industry source | Statute permits deriving actual cost from comparable vehicles; "derived from" and "based upon" mean the listed sources serve as the starting point and appropriate adjustments (like condition adjustments and use of advertised prices/databases) are permissible | Court: Affirmed for Safeco — insurer may start with the statutory sources and apply reasonable adjustments; advertised prices and the CCC methodology comport with §626.9743(5) |
| Whether dealer fees paid to a dealer when purchasing a replacement vehicle must be included in "actual cash value" | Dealer fees are routine replacement costs and thus should be included in actual cash value | Under Mills and Florida law, only costs that the insured is reasonably likely to need (i.e., necessary) to replace the property are included; dealer fees are not necessarily required and plaintiff’s evidence did not show they were reasonably likely necessary | Court: Affirmed for Safeco — dealer fees not recoverable as a matter of law because plaintiff failed to show they were reasonably likely necessary to replace the vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. Foremost Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2008) (contract interpretation: include routinely necessary replacement costs in actual cash value when reasonably likely to be needed)
- Trinidad v. Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co., 121 So. 3d 433 (Fla. 2013) (definition: actual cash value = replacement cost minus depreciation)
- Found. Health v. Westside EKG Assocs., 944 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2006) (statutory requirements can be incorporated into insurance contracts)
- James River Ins. Co. v. Ultratec Special Effects, Inc., 22 F.4th 1246 (11th Cir. 2022) (standard of review for summary judgment rulings on cross-motions)
- Sparkman v. McClure, 498 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1986) (statutory use of "or" indicates alternatives intended)