Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., 121 So. 3d 433

This case involves the scope of replacement cost insurance under the 2008 Florida Statutes when repairs may not have been undertaken.
Trinidad filed a fire loss claim with Florida Peninsula under a replacement cost policy; Florida Peninsula paid for repair costs but excluded overhead and profit.
The Third District (Trinidad) held that overhead and profit could be withheld unless incurred or contractually obligated.
This Court granted jurisdiction to resolve conflict with Goff, which held overhead and profit could be depreciated in actual cash value payments when a general contractor is reasonably necessary.
The Florida Supreme Court held that overhead and profit are included in replacement costs when a general contractor is reasonably likely to be needed, and that the insurer cannot withhold these costs pending actual incurrence.
The Court also addressed the interaction between the policy language (l(b) vs l(c)) and the statute, and remanded for determination of reasonableness and likelihood of needing a contractor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether overhead and profit are included in replacement costs.	Trinidad argues overhead/profit are replacement costs.	Florida Peninsula argues overhead/profit are not required until incurred.	Yes, included.
How §627.7011(3) governs replacement costs regardless of actual repairs.	Statute requires replacement costs without depreciation regardless of repairs.	Statute only bars depreciation holdbacks; does not compel incurrence.	Statute requires payment of replacement costs regardless of actual repair; depreciation not withheld.
Which policy subsection controls payment when no repairs are made, and whether overhead/profit fall under it.	Overhead/profit should be included under replacement costs, not limited by actual expenditures.	Policy l(b) vs l(c); if no repairs, payments may be under l(b) excluding unreimbursed costs.	Subsection (l)(b) applies; overhead/profit are included as replacement costs when contractor is reasonably needed.

Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Ins. Co., 99 So.3d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (replacement cost includes overhead and profit when a general contractor is reasonably likely to be needed)
Goff v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co., 999 So.2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (overhead and profit included in actual cash value when a contractor is reasonably likely to be needed; can be depreciable in that context)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Patrick, 647 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (replacement cost defined as amount to repair or replace on same premises; depreciation not applicable to replacement costs)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (statutes must be construed to comply with replacement cost framework; limits on liability must harmonize with replacement costs)
Davis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 781 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (distinguishes replacement cost vs actual cash value concepts in damage calculations)