Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co.
99 So. 3d 502
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Trinidad sued Florida Peninsula Insurance Co. for overhead and profit that were allegedly omitted from payment for a fire loss.
- The claim was paid under a replacement cost policy, but Trinidad contends overhead and profit should still be paid.
- The fire damaged Trinidad’s home on February 11, 2008; policy endorsement in 2005 converted the policy from actual cash value to replacement cost.
- Overhead and profit are contractor costs; Trinidad did not hire a general contractor, incur these costs, or enter into a contract for repairs.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Florida Peninsula, finding the policy unambiguous and not requiring payment of overhead/profit absent incurrence or contractual obligation.
- On appeal, the court reaffirmed that replacement cost payments depend on actual costs incurred or contractually bound costs; depreciation holdbacks are separate and do not require overhead/profit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a replacement cost policy require overhead/profit absent incurrence? | Trinidad: overhead/profit must be paid as part of replacement costs. | Florida Peninsula: only incurred or contractually obligated costs are payable. | Not owed unless incurred or contracted. |
| Does § 627.7011 require payment of overhead/profit under replacement cost? | Statute supports broader payment including overhead/profit. | Statute only requires replacement costs without depreciation; it does not mention overhead/profit. | Statute does not require overhead/profit absent incurrence. |
| Does Brady control outcome over Brady's facts? | Brady supports inclusion of overhead/profit in replacement costs. | Brady does not govern here because policy is replacement cost and no contractor was engaged. | Brady not controlling; policy language governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goff v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 999 So.2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (overhead and profit are included in repair costs when applicable)
- Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 29 So.3d 1000 (Fla.2010) (insurance policy interpretation is a legal issue reviewed de novo)
- ItNor Corp. v. Markel Int’l Ins. Co., 981 So.2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (policy interpretation governed by plain meaning)
- Telemundo Television Studios, LLC v. Aequicap Ins. Co., 38 So.3d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (plain meaning governs unambiguous policy terms)
- State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 969 So.2d 393 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (replacement cost policy may withhold payment until incurred)