Haynes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
120 So. 3d 651
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Haynes owned an insured home with replacement-cost coverage under Universal Property & Casualty’s policy.
- A storm in April 2009 damaged Haynes’s roof; temporary repairs were made and later a contractor (Masimo) recommended full replacement.
- Universal’s independent adjuster estimated repairs at $4,944.30; Haynes’s public adjuster submitted substantially higher estimates (initially $26,511.24, later amended to $34,751.61) and sought undisputed funds, some of which Universal paid.
- Haynes sued for breach of contract seeking the balance of replacement-cost payments; Universal denied breach and disputed the damage amount and compliance with policy conditions.
- At summary judgment, Universal argued Haynes produced no evidence she had contracted for or incurred repair costs; the trial court granted summary judgment for Universal citing the Third District’s Trinidad decision.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court improperly relied on the Third District opinion that the Florida Supreme Court had quashed and that Florida law requires payment of replacement cost without awaiting actual expenditure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether insurer may withhold replacement-cost payment until insured actually incurs repair/replacement costs | Haynes: statute and policy require payment of replacement cost regardless of whether she has incurred costs or contracted for repairs | Universal: Haynes has not become contractually obligated or spent money; thus no basis for full payment | Reversed: insurer may not withhold replacement-cost payment pending actual expenditure or contracting |
| Whether summary judgment was proper based on absence of evidence of incurred costs or contract | Haynes: disputed estimate and statutory/policy rights create genuine issues of material fact | Universal: absence of contract/expenses and uncertified estimates preclude recovery | Reversed: material issue remains because insurer’s withholding conflicted with statute and Supreme Court precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinidad v. Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co., 121 So.3d 433 (Fla. 2013) (Florida Supreme Court held insurer may not withhold replacement-cost payments until insured incurs repair costs)
- Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Ins. Co., 99 So.3d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (trial-court affirmance reversed by Florida Supreme Court)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (summary-judgment standard explained)
- Itiat v. Foskey, 28 So.3d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (summary-judgment burdens and inferences)