CopyCited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 564, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1678, 2007 WL 2727072
...This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Cox,
943 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In its decision, the district court ruled upon the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance: DOES SECTION
627.702(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (2004), REFERRED TO AS THE VALUED POLICY LAW, REQUIRE AN INSURANCE CARRIER TO PAY THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY TO AN OWNER OF A BUILDING DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS WHEN THE BUILDING IS DAMAGED IN PART BY A COVERED PERIL BUT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED BY AN EXCLUDED PERIL? Fla....
...ssenting), adopted Mierzwa's interpretation of the statute: *818 The meaning of the VPL is simple and straightforward. There are two essentials in the statute. The first is that the building be "insured by [an] insurer as to a [e.s.] covered peril." § 627.702(1)....
...e acting in her or his behalf, the insurer's liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been charged and paid. § 627.702(1), Fla....
...Contrary to the conclusion of the district court, we do not find that the plain language of the statute intends that if a covered peril causes part of a total loss, that the insurer is mandated to pay for the total loss. Of particular importance, the VPL does not mention causation. Section 627.702 does not establish any requirement for an insurer to pay for excluded or noncovered perils. We read the plain language of the statute not to reasonably support such an interpretation. The beginning phrase states: "In the event of the total loss . . . as to a covered peril. . . ." § 627.702(1), Fla. Stat. (2004) (emphasis added). Throughout section 627.702(1), the Legislature repeatedly relies upon the terms of the parties' insurance contract and discusses only covered perils. Section 627.702(1) explicitly states that "[i]n the event of the total loss of any building ....
...insured by any insurer as to a covered peril . . ., the insurer's liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been charged and paid. " § 627.702(1), Fla....
...a loss was caused in part by a covered peril and in part by a noncovered peril, paragraph (a) does not apply. In such circumstances, the insurer's liability under this section shall be limited to the amount of the loss caused by the covered peril." § 627.702(1)(b), Fla....
CopyCited 19 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 566, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1677, 2007 WL 2727092
...Valued Policy Law (VPL), and such coverage required the insured to demonstrate an actual loss before payment was required. Ceballo,
934 So.2d at 538. For the reasons stated below, we approve the decision of the Third District and hold that the VPL, section
627.702, Florida Statutes (2004), does not override the language of a policy as it relates to supplemental coverage....
...Though related, each coverage protects against a separate covered loss or hazard. Similarly, each coverage defines the "amount and extent" of the insurer's liability for the covered risk. See Black's Law Dictionary 365 (6th ed. 1990). The plain language of Florida's VPL, section 627.702, Florida Statutes (2004), requires an insurer to pay that amount listed on the face of the policy in the event of a total loss without the necessity of any additional proof of the actual value of the loss incurred....
...Florida's VPL specifically states that it does not apply to "any coverage or claim in which the dollar amount of coverage available as to the structure involved is not directly stated in the policy as a dollar amount specifically applicable to that particular structure." § 627.702(5), Fla....
CopyCited 19 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3024902
...oding. The Coxes counterclaimed for policy limits. The VPL provides that, when there is a total loss of a structure which is insured "as to a covered peril, . . . the insurer's liability, if any," is in the amount for which the property was insured. § 627.702(1), Fla....
...insured by any insurer as to a covered peril, . . . the insurer's liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been charged and paid. § 627.702(1), Fla....
...4th DCA 2004), where the Fourth District characterized the VPL as "simple and straightforward": The meaning of the VPL is simple and straightforward. There are two essentials in the statute. The first is that the building be "insured by [an] insurer as to a [e.s.] covered peril." § 627.702(1)....
...If an insurer has any obligation under the policy to pay on account of a covered peril, and the structure is a total loss, then the insurer is responsible for paying the total amount of the policy. The statute provides that the insurer's "liability" "if any" is in the amount for which the property is insured. § 627.702(1), Fla....
...section two, which provides that the "insurer's liability, if any" in "the case of a partial loss" "shall be for the actual amount of such loss but shall not exceed the amount of insurance specified in the policy as to such property and such peril." § 627.702(2), Fla....
...insured by any insurer as to a covered peril, . . . the insurer's liability under the policy for such total loss, if caused by a covered peril, shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been charged and paid. § 627.702(1)(a), Fla....
...Other language was added, [2] including notably the following: It is the intent of the Legislature that the amendment to this section shall not be applied retroactively and shall apply only to claims filed after the effective date of such amendment. § 627.702(1)(c), Fla....
...The VPL amendment cannot be read as clarification of the legislative intent animating its predecessor, since the amendment states unambiguously that the amended statute is not to be applied retroactively to claims filed before enactment of the amendment. § 627.702(1)(c), Fla....
...Farm Bureau argues that a separate flood insurance policy had to be purchased to cover the damage caused by the water. [11] The Coxes argue that the trial court ruled properly in their favor because notwithstanding the exclusion of water damage as a covered peril in their homeowners' insurance policy, section
627.702(1), Florida Statutes (2004), requires Farm Bureau to pay the total loss. The trial court was bound to follow the only case addressing this issue, Mierzwa v. Florida Windstorm Underwriting Ass'n,
877 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that the plain meaning of section
627.702(1) mandates that if it is found that a carrier has any liability at all to the owner of a building damaged by a covered peril and deemed a total loss, the carrier is liable for the face amount of the policy, regardless of whether the covered peril caused the loss). Section
627.702(1), sometimes referred to as the Valued Policy Law (VLP) [12] , states: In the event of the total loss of any building, structure, mobile home as defined in s....
...ing in her or his behalf, the insurer's *837 liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been charged and paid. § 627.702(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). Farm Bureau argues that this court should interpret the statute differently from Mierzwa so that it is not liable for damages caused by perils excluded from the policy. Because section 627.702(1) addresses only valuation in the event of a total loss and does not address insurer liability where the damages were caused by both excluded and covered perils, the policy exclusions should be given effect....
...Coxes' property suffered extensive damage from both windstorm and tidal surge caused by Hurricane Ivan. The parties concede the property was rendered a total loss. Farm Bureau filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking an interpretation of section 627.702(1), Florida Statutes (2004)....
...In Count I of their counterclaim, the Coxes demanded judgment for damages against Farm Bureau for breach of contract, plus attorney's fees, costs and prejudgment interest. In Count II, they demanded judgment for damages against Farm Bureau for "the full value of their policy" under Florida's Valued Property Law, section 627.702, Florida Statutes (2004), plus attorney's fees, costs and prejudgment interest. The Coxes filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on Mierzwa and section 627.702, and demanded judgment for the face amount of the policy ($65,000 for the dwelling, $6,500 for other structures, $32,500 for personal property and $13,000 for loss of use, totaling $117,000), attorney's fees, costs, and prejudgment interest....
...nt in the insureds' favor for $105,246.60. [14] The trial court entered final judgment accordingly, reserving jurisdiction to determine the Coxes' attorney's fees and costs. Farm Bureau appealed the trial court's final judgment. II. PLAIN MEANING OF SECTION 627.702(1) FLORIDA'S VPL Section 627.702(1) states in relevant part: "In the event of the total loss of any building ....
...The court held that the trial court erred by requiring the insurer to pay a pro rata amount according to the damages caused by wind, the covered peril. The Fourth District awarded the insured the policy limits based on two reasons. Id. at 777, 780. First, the court interpreted section 627.702(1) in the same manner argued by the Coxes, based on its plain reading of the statute....
...located in this state and insured by any insurer as to a covered peril, the insurer's liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been charged and paid. " § 627.702(1), Fla....
...located in this state and insured by any insurer as to such perils, . . . the insurer's liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which premium has been charged and paid. § 627.702(1), Fla....
...HB 4F (1982) Staff Analysis 7 (April 13, 1982) (emphasis added). [19] Indeed, the VPL expressly states that an insurer's liability for a total loss is "in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been paid." § 627.702(1), Fla....
...hen withhold payment of the policy limits when the property is a total loss. The Mierzwa interpretation stretches the statute far beyond its narrow scope. V. LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO FLORIDA'S VPL AFTER MIERZWA In 2005, the Florida Legislature amended section 627.702. Effective June 1, 2005, section 627.702(1) no longer provides that upon a total loss resulting from a covered peril "the insurer's liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss" shall be the policy limits. Ch.2005-111, §§ 16, 30, at 1092-93, 1103, Laws of Fla. Rather, the pertinent language states that "the insurer's liability under the policy for such total loss, if caused by a covered peril," shall be the policy limits. § 627.702( l )(a), Fla....
...However, if the covered perils alone would have caused the total loss, paragraph (a) shall apply. The insurer is never liable for more than the amount necessary to repair, rebuild, or replace the structure following the total loss, after considering all other benefits actually paid for the total loss. § 627.702( l )(b), Fla. Stat. (2005). The 2005 amendment is not retroactive. § 627.702(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005) (stating "[i]t is the intent of the Legislature that the amendment to this section shall not be applied retroactively and shall apply only to claims filed after [the] effective date of such amendment"). After the 2005 amendment to section 627.702(1), the statute for the first time addressed how it should be applied where covered and excluded perils both cause damages to a structure....
...Accordingly, because the pre-2005 version of the statute, which is applicable in this case, does not address losses caused by covered and excluded perils, there is no conflict between the policy provision excluding from liability damage caused by water or flooding, and section 627.702(1)....
...In the absence of a statutory command, Farm Bureau is accordingly entitled to invoke the flood exclusion in the Coxes' policies and the parties are bound by their contract. *847 Conclusion Accordingly, I would certify conflict with Mierzwa and hold that Florida's VPL, section 627.702(1), Florida Statutes (2004), addresses only valuation in the event of a total loss and does not address insurer liability where the damages were caused by both excluded and covered perils....
...ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING, MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC, AND/OR MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION PER CURIAM. Appellant's motion is granted to the extent that we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance: DOES SECTION 627.702(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (2004), REFERRED TO AS THE VALUED POLICY LAW, REQUIRE AN INSURANCE CARRIER TO PAY THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY TO AN OWNER OF A BUILDING DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS WHEN THE BUILDING IS DAMAGED IN PART BY A COVERED PERIL...
...However, if the covered perils alone would have caused the total loss, paragraph (a) shall apply. The insurer is never liable for more than the amount necessary to repair, rebuild, or replace the structure following the total loss, after considering all other benefits actually paid for the total loss. § 627.702(1)(b), Fla....
...9, 2005) (on file with comm.), available at http://www.flsenate. gov/data/session/2005/Senate/bills/billtext/pdf/s1486c1.pdf (discussing statutory changes to section
627.701, Florida Statutes, in analysis performed prior to floor amendment to Senate Bill 1486 adding changes to section
627.702). A similar bill, Senate Bill 1488, proposed to amend section
627.702, but did not include language stating that the amendment was not to be retroactive....
.... to clarify . . . that the Fourth DCA opinion in Mierzwa . . . was incorrect."). But Senate Bill 1488 ultimately did not pass, and Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1486, which did pass, included the language which specified that the changes to section 627.702 were not retroactive....
...ns but thereafter repudiating their contracts when it becomes to their interest to do so." Id. at § 175:103. [13] Farm Bureau makes similar arguments on appeal that I reject. There are no additional facts to be discovered for the court to interpret section 627.702(1)....
...[14] The amount of the judgment was computed by taking the face amount of the policy of $117,000, subtracting previously paid amounts totaling $17,350.52, and adding prejudgment interest of $5,597.12 accrued from the date of the loss. [15] Farm Bureau argues on appeal that the trial court improperly applied section 627.702(1) to personal property, appurtenant structures, and loss of use, which are excluded from the statutory language....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8804, 2004 WL 1392320
..... located in this state and insured by any insurer as to a covered peril... the insurer's liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy...." § 627.702(1), Fla....
...722 (1929); Regency Baptist Temple v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.,
352 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The meaning of the VPL is simple and straightforward. There are two essentials in the statute. The first is that the building be "insured by [an] insurer as to a [e.s.] covered peril." §
627.702(1)....
...as to the cost of repairs or replacement. That is to say, if the insurance carrier has any liability at all to the owner for a building *776 damaged by a covered peril and deemed a total loss, that liability is for the face amount of the policy. VPL § 627.702(1) ("[T]he insurer's liability, if any [e.s.] shall be [the face amount of insurance].") The VPL statutory text does not require that a covered peril be the covered peril causing the entire loss; it need merely be a covered peril. VPL § 627.702(1) ("insured by any insurer as to a [e.s.] covered peril")....
...total, or partial; and, to this end, it requires the insurer to ascertain the insurable value at the time of writing the policy, and to write it therein. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Redding,
47 Fla. 228,
37 So. 62, 65 (1904) (construing predecessor to section
627.702(1))....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 23607
...Boswell,
167 So.2d 780, 785 (Fla.1st Dist.Ct.App.1964); Rutherford v. Pearl Assurance Co.,
164 So.2d 213, 215-16 (Fla.lst Dist.Ct.App. 1964) (dicta). The judge found the applicable Florida law “unclear” however, because the applicable subsections of Florida’s Valued Policy Law, Fla.Stat. §
627.702 (1981), applied different rules of recovery to partial and total losses....
...We affirm the award of ^rejudgment interest under the principles announced in Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co.,
474 So.2d 212, 213-15 (1985) and Warren v. Old Dominion Insurance Co.,
465 So.2d 1376, 1377-79 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1985). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 . Fla.Stat. §
627.702 (1981) provides in pertinent part: (1) In event of total loss by fire or lightning of any building ......
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12177, 1994 WL 697375
...Patrick's contract provides *984 that State Farm "will not pay for any loss on a replacement cost basis until the lost or damaged property is actually repaired or replaced... ." Patrick argues that the partial withholding until the repair work is completed is prohibited by section 627.702(2), Florida Statutes (1991), and Florida caselaw. However, section 627.702(2) is not applicable because it covers only partial loss from fire or lightning; this case deals with wind damage....
...mount greater than what they could recover under the basic policy coverage... ." Kolls,
378 F. Supp. at 400. Based on the plain language of the policy, we reverse. NOTES [1] This Court does not address the issue of whether an insurance company under section
627.702(2), Florida Statutes (1991), can withhold partial payment until after the repair work has been completed.
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 716784
...Since parties can stipulate to an AWW after an *1138 accident, there is no reason to prohibit them from doing it before the accident occurs. As a matter of fact, stipulations as to the amount of benefits to be paid under an insurance policy are routine in some forms of coverage. § 627.702, Fla....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3299196
...how much coverage was due. The Golmons contend that the full policy limits are due, under Mierzwa v. Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association,
877 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), in which the Fourth District interpreted Florida's Valued Policy Law, section
627.702, Florida Statutes, to mean that, where an insured suffers a total loss due to both covered and non-covered risks, the insurer must pay the full amount of the homeowner's insurance policy limits....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1317
...1st DCA 1982) and Argonaut Insurance Company v. May Plumbing Company,
474 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1985) for the proposition that a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date. Further, section
627.702, Florida Statutes (Florida's "valued policy" law) provides that in the event of total loss of a structure, the insurer's liability under the policy shall be in the amount of money for which the property was insured....
...y therefore. See Argonaut,
474 So.2d at 215. In the instant case, the jury determined defendant's liability for the loss at trial. The value of the loss, or the amount of damages due on the residence, was determined by the policy itself, pursuant to section
627.702....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40790, 2006 WL 1589815
...The amendments increased the minimum flood elevation requirement of the plaintiffs' property by 3 feet. According to the plaintiffs, the base flood elevation required for the plaintiffs' home would now be 10 feet. In plaintiffs' complaint, they contend that Florida's Valued Policy Law, Section 627.702(1) of the Florida Statutes, requires Owners and Fidelity to pay the full face amount of each respective policy....
...FIDELITY'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Fidelity moves for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that plaintiffs' state law claims are not applicable to its flood insurance policy. Specifically, Fidelity contends that plaintiffs' Valued Policy Law claim based on Section 627.702(1) of the Florida Statutes is preempted by federal law....
...nce with the policy requirements must be granted. 3. Owners' Policy: Florida's Valued Policy Law Claim Because of the damages that their home suffered as a result of Hurricane Ivan, the plaintiffs contend that Florida's Valued Policy Law [Fla. Stat. § 627.702(1)] also requires Owners to pay the full face amount of the plaintiffs' policy, rather than just the cost of repairing damage caused by windstorm. Section 627.702 of the Florida Statutes, in effect at the time plaintiffs' home was damaged, provided: *1279 "In the event of the total loss of any building, structure, ....
...located in this state and insured by any insurer as to a covered peril, the insurer's liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss, shall be the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been charged and paid." § 627.702(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). Section 627.702 is triggered only when an insured building is rendered a "total loss" as defined by Florida courts....
...s not apply. In such circumstances, the insurer's liability under this section shall be limited to the amount of the loss caused by the covered peril. However, if the covered perils alone would have caused the total loss, paragraph (a) shall apply." § 627.702(c), Fla....
...Since the new claim postdates June 1, 2005, the amended version of Florida's Valued Policy Law would apply and expressly preclude the new claims. Under the amended statute, the "total loss" provision only applies "if the covered perils alone would have caused the total loss." § 627.702(c), Fla....
...plaintiffs' home constituted a partial loss, rather than a total loss. As a consequence, the plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine dispute regarding a material issue, and Owners is entitled to summary judgment that Florida's "Valued Policy Law" [§ 627.702] does not apply to the facts of this case....
...Nor does this section apply to coverage of an appurtenant structure or other structure of any coverage or claim in which the dollar amount of coverage available as to the structure involved is not directly stated in the policy as a dollar amount specifically applicable to that particular structure." § 627.702(5), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1544, 2009 WL 485038
...[Citizens has] not submitted any evidence to the contrary. In granting summary judgment, the trial court relied heavily on Mierzwa v. Florida Windstorm Underwriting Ass'n,
877 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), in which the District Court held that, under the Valued Policy Law (VPL), section
627.702(1), Florida Statutes, an insurer must pay the face amount of a policy if the insurer is liable for any damage caused by a covered peril and if the insureds premises is deemed a total loss....
...1st DCA 2006), this court accepted the reasoning of Mierzwa and held that an insurer is liable for the total loss of a home even when the total loss cannot be wholly attributed to a covered peril. We certified the following question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court: Does section 627.702(1), Florida Statutes (2004), referred to as the valued policy law, require an insurance carrier to pay the face amount of the policy to an owner of a building deemed a total loss when the building is damaged in part by a covered peril but is significantly damaged by an excluded peril? Id....
...The Supreme Court explained: Contrary to the conclusion of the district court, we do not find that the plain language of the [VPL] statute intends that if a covered peril causes part of a total loss, that the insurer is mandated to pay for the total loss. Of particular importance, the VPL does not mention causation. Section 627.702 does not establish any requirement for an insurer to pay for excluded or noncovered perils. We read the plain language of the statute not to reasonably support such an interpretation. The beginning phrase states: "In the event of the total loss... as to a covered peril...." § 627.702(1), Fla. Stat. (2004) (emphasis added). Throughout section 627.702(1), the Legislature repeatedly relies upon the terms of the parties' insurance contract and discusses only covered perils. Section 627.702(1) explicitly states that "[i]n the event of the total loss of any building ......
...insured by any insurer as to a covered peril..., the insurer's liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been charged and paid. " § 627.702(1), Fla....
...(2004). [2] After Mierzwa was decided, the Florida Legislature amended the VPL to expressly provide that when a loss is caused in part by a covered peril, the insurer's liability is limited to the amount of the loss attributable to the covered peril. § 627.702(1)(b), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17148
...Similar provisions have been upheld in the case of partial loss. 15 G. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law § 54:166, p. 419 (2d ed. R. Anderson 1966). The rule is otherwise when, in the case of loss by fire or lightning, such a provision conflicts with Florida's valued policy law, Section 627.702, Florida Statutes (1975)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33884, 2006 WL 1517048
...ed replacement cost coverage applies. Plaintiff also acknowledges that he has taken none of these required steps. He contends, however, that Section B(2) of the policy is void because it conflicts with Florida's Valued Policy Law ("VPL"), Fla. Stat. § 627.702....
...to coverage of an appurtenant structure or other structure or any coverage or claim in which the dollar amount of coverage available as to the structure involved is not directly stated in the policy as a dollar amount specifically applicable to that particular structure. Fla. Stat. § 627.702....
...If you choose not to repair or replace, we will only pay you the cost to repair or rebuild the damaged Dwelling at the same premises prior to the loss, or the applicable limits of insurance shown on the Declarations, whichever is less. Doc. 25, Exh. A, ERCC endorsement, # 125487. [9] In relevant part, § 627.702 provides: (1)(a) In the event of the total loss of any building, structure ....
...insured property at the time any loss or damage occurs, and the amount actually expended to repair, rebuild, or replace within this state, with new materials of like size, kind, and quality, such property as has been damaged or destroyed. Fla. Stat. § 627.702....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1331504
...enses, with regard to the coverage provided in the Additional Coverage provisions. The Ceballos moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that because the property was a total loss as a result of a covered peril, under Florida's Valued Policy Law, section 627.702(1), Florida Statutes (2005), [1] and Mierzwa v....
...We therefore reverse and remand for the Ceballos to present proof of incurred expenses consistent with the policy. Because this holding conflicts with that of the Fourth District in Mierzwa, we certify direct conflict with that decision. Reversed and remanded; direct conflict certified. NOTES [1] 627.702....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16556
...n the parties to the insurance contract. We decline to address the issue of entitlement to attorney's fees below because the trial court has not yet ruled on this issue. We also find it unnecessary to address the issue concerning the construction of section 627.702(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), which is addressed in one of the appeals....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 17891, 2010 WL 4628915
...unt of insurance proceeds Ashe received. On cross-appeal, Ashe contends that the trial court erred by precluding him from submitting to the jury a claim that wind caused a total loss to his insured property under Florida’s Valued Policy Law (VPL), section 627.702, Florida Statutes (2004)....
...ld establish that it was blown from its pilings prior to any storm surge. He contended that he was entitled to recover a total loss under his wind-only VPL policy. Citizens disagreed that Ashe was entitled to any further payment. This action ensued. Section 627.702(1) provides in pertinent part that “[i]n the event of the total loss of any building ......
...In Cox , the supreme court held that when the total loss is caused by the combination of covered and non-covered perils, the VPL does not apply. As this court recently explained in Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Mathis: In Cox , the Florida Supreme Court ruled that section
627.702(1), Florida Statutes (2004) was ‘intended only to set the value of the property insured by the policy in order to conclusively establish the property’s value when there is a total loss.’
967 So.2d at 819....
...olicies is computed differently than under a VPL policy. See Monistere v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
559 F.3d 390 (5th Cir.2009) (holding that constructive total loss doctrine does not apply to NFIP policies). . Although the legislature amended section
627.702(1) in 2005, the parties agree the 2004 statute is applicable to these facts. Under the 2005 version of section
627.702(l)(b), the insurer would not be liable for more than the amount necessary to repair, rebuild or replace a structure following a total loss after considering all other benefits actually paid for the loss....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 906448
...al *485 living expenses (loss of use). He alleged, among other things, that the substantial damage determination issued by Santa Rosa County rendered the insured property a total loss, which entitled him to policy limits from Citizens under the VPL, section 627.702(1), Florida Statutes (2004)....
...located in this state and insured by any insurer as to a covered peril . . . the insurer's liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been charged and paid. § 627.702(1)....
...ty was limited to the pro rata share of the loss caused by wind: The meaning of the VPL is simple and straightforward. There are two essentials in the statute. The first is that the building be "insured by [an] insurer as to a [e.s.] covered peril." § 627.702(1)....
...conflicts with its enabling legislation, which limits Citizens' mission to providing wind-only coverage. See §
627.351(6)(q). We find no conflict between the relevant provisions of Citizens' enabling legislation, section
627.351(6)(q), and the VPL, section
627.702(1), as they address different situations....
...s equal to the predetermined amount in the policy. Citizens' enabling statute and the VPL address different situations, and the pertinent situation here, that of fixing the measure of damages where there is a total loss, is addressed by the VPL. See § 627.702(1)....
...tion to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance: DOES THE ENABLING STATUTE FOR CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, §
627.351(6), FLA. STAT. (2004), PRECLUDE AN *492 AWARD OF POLICY LIMITS UNDER THE VALUED POLICY LAW, §
627.702(1), FLA....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9885, 2010 WL 2671808
...uently paid to appellees. The Hamiltons then filed suit against Citizens, seeking to recover full policy limits. The complaint alleged that the Hamil-tons’ dwelling was insured against losses caused by windstorm by a “valued policy” subject to section
627.702, Florida Statutes (2004). Appellees advanced the claim on the strength of Mierzwa v. Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association, which (incorrectly) interpreted the Valued Policy Law (VPL), section
627.702, Florida Statutes (2004), to allow an insured whose dwelling sustained a total loss by combination of wind and flood to recover the entire policy limits under a wind-only policy if the insured could prove that any part of the total loss was attributable to wind. See
877 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), superseded by statute, §
627.702(1)(b), Fla....
...it of the claimant, or which are otherwise available to the claimant, from all collateral sources”). In this matter, under the statute in effect at the time of the loss, the common law collateral source rule had not been legislatively altered. See § 627.702(1), Fla....
...Of course, whether NFIP has any claim back against the Hamiltons is not encompassed by this appeal. That the Legislature in 2005 amended the VPL to incorporate the spirit of the total loss recovery rule further supports our conclusion that this doctrine was not previously part of our canon of common law. See § 627.702(1)(b), Fla....
...actual cash value for their losses. As related to the mobile home, the total loss of which placed it under the VPL, Citizens cannot show that the error was harmful: Once the jury found a total loss caused by wind, damages were fixed by statute. See § 627.702(l)(a), Fla....
...The jury also found, however, that the other two structures on the property, the garage and the rabbit coop, sustained wind damage. Because neither structure fell within the purview of the VPL, the jury should have been required to calculate the damages to these “other structures.” See § 627.702(5), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...cost of repair and that this action was "in accordance with the decisions cited as a means of determining the amount of the loss." Herein lies the conflict with Glens Falls, supra . *298 The amount recoverable in this case is governed by Fla. Stat. § 627.702, F.S.A....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2981912
...The trial court awarded the Mannings policy limits under both the policy's wind damage to dwelling provision and under a separate provision for debris removal. At least as regards the dwelling coverage, the trial court relied upon the interpretation of the 2004 version of Florida's Valued Policy Law (VPL), § 627.702(1), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16588
...ORDER STAFFORD, Chief Judge. The parties have asked the court for a ruling on the following issue: if the jury finds in favor of plaintiff Barnes only, does she receive the full amount of the policy? Plaintiffs suggest that when Florida's valued policy law, Florida Statutes § 627.702 (1979), is coupled with the innocent co-insured doctrine of Auto-Owners Insurance Co....
...The *352 Minnesota rule is therefore faithful to the spirit of Florida's valued policy law. The court is further persuaded by the very words of the valued policy law: "the insurer's liability, if any, under the policy for such total loss shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured ..." § 627.702(1) Florida Statutes (1979) (emphasis added)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...of Coble, McKinnon, Rothert, Bohner, Barkin & Godbee, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellees. DAUKSCH, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiffs money damages from two insurance companies under the provisions of the valued policy law. Sec. 627.702, Fla....
...exceed $30,000.00. Both policies had other insurance clauses for lesser exposure if other insurance existed. After the fire loss plaintiffs sued both insurance companies for the full coverage under each policy. After a non-jury trial the court found section 627.702, Florida Statutes (1977), to be controlling; the mobile home was real property; the other insurance clauses contained within the insurance policies were invalid because they were contrary to this statute; and plaintiffs were entitled to recover the full amount of insurance coverage provided by each policy for the loss of their mobile home. Section 627.702, Florida Statutes (1977), stated that the valued policy law applied to buildings and structures....
...re real or personal property, as will be discussed, subsequent legislative changes and rules of statutory construction lead us to conclude that the 1977 law considered mobile homes to be personal property. Thus they were exempted from the purview of section 627.702, Florida Statutes (1977), by reason of subsection (4)....
...a dwelling. This change suggests that the Legislature was reclassifying a mobile home from personal property to real property. This new definition is important for our consideration of the valued policy law because the 1979 legislative amendment to section
627.702 refers to this new definition of mobile home. Ch. 79-237, § 1, Laws of Fla. Subsection (1) was amended from only applying to total losses of "any building or structure" to apply to losses of "any building or structure or mobile home as defined in s.
320.01(2)... ." Sec.
627.702(1), Fla....
...obile homes as defined in s.
320.01(2) .... Ch. 79-237, § 1, Laws of Fla. In addition, these changes were accompanied by considerable new language concerning mobile homes. In order to give meaning to all of these changes [2] and all of the parts of section
627.702, [3] it must be concluded that mobile homes were considered to be personal property under the 1977 valued policy law. Since personal property was excluded from the provisions of this act, the trial court erred in finding the other insurance clauses to be contrary to section
627.702, Florida Statutes (1977)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5231, 2010 WL 1542631
...In response, the Mathises assert they introduced evidence, which the jury accepted, that the wind damage, a covered peril under their homeowners policy, caused a total loss or constructive total loss of their home, so that under Florida's Valued Policy Law (VPL), section 627.702(1), Florida Statutes (2004), [1] they were entitled to recover their policy limits under the homeowners policy....
...Further, even if the pleading requirement had been met in this case, there is no evidence in this record of an actual duplication of benefits. Florida Farm's reliance upon the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Cox is misplaced. In Cox, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that section
627.702(1), Florida Statutes (2004) was "intended only to set the value of the property insured by the policy in order to conclusively establish the property's value when there is a total loss."
967 So.2d at 819....
..., "appellate review is only possible when resolution of the issues does not require factual determinations." Fla. Auto. Dealers Indus. Benefit Trust v. Small,
592 So.2d 1179, 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). AFFIRMED. LEWIS and ROWE, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section
627.702(1) provides in pertinent part: In the event of the total loss of any building......
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 5225271, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14799
...It states in paragraph (l)(a) that “the insurer’s liability under the policy for such total loss, if caused by a covered peril, shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been charged and paid.” § 627.702(l)(a), Fla....
...he had received. The decision in Ashe was grounded on a valued policy law concept explained in Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Cox,
967 So.2d 815, 817 (Fla.2007), in which the court answered no to the following certified question: DOES SECTION
627.702(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (2004), REFERRED TO AS THE VALUED POLICY LAW, REQUIRE AN INSURANCE CARRIER TO PAY THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY TO AN OWNER OF A BUILDING DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS WHEN THE BUILDING IS DAMAGED IN PART BY A COVERED PERIL BUT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED BY AN EXCLUDED PERIL? It is clear from the certified question that the Cox court was interpreting the 2004 version of the statute. By the time the case reached the supreme court, the legislature had already amended section
627.702(1) to provide that: (b) The intent of this subsection is not to deprive an insurer of any proper defense under the policy, to create new or *203 additional coverage under the policy, or to require an insurer to pay for a loss caused by a peril other than the covered peril....
...However, if the covered perils alone would have caused the total loss, paragraph (a) shall apply. The insurer is never liable for more than the amount necessary to repair, rebuild, or replace the structure following the total loss, after considering all other benefits actually paid for the total loss. § 627.702(1), Fla....
...We therefore leave all issues related to valued policy law, including the admissibility of benefits Sebo received from codefendants, to be clarified on retrial. We note that the 2005 version of the statute applies to this case— Sebo’s claim was filed in December 2005. See § 627.702(l)(c), Fla....
...o a water damage exclusion); Ruiz v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Civil Action No. 1:07CV89 LTS-RHW,
2007 WL 1514015 (S.D.Miss. May 21, 2007) (not reported in F.Supp.3d). . Florida does have a statute that applies when a building is a total loss, §
627.702, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1385958
...e caused by wind was covered under the provisions of the policy. Both parties concede that appellees' home sustained substantial damage from flood in the amount of $322,601.88 and that the damage attributable to wind was in the amount of $14,073.65. Section 627.702, Florida Statutes (2004), also know as Florida's Valued Policy Law (VPL), reads as follows: (1) In the event of the total loss of any building, structure, mobile home as defined in s....
...Florida Windstorm Underwriting Ass'n, the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently characterized the VPL as follows: The meaning of the VPL is simple and straightforward. There are two essentials in the statute. The first is that the building be "insured by [an] insurer as to a [e.s.] covered peril." § 627.702(1)....
...If these two facts are true, the VPL mandates that the carrier is liable to the owner for the face amount of the policy, no matter what other facts are involved as to the cost of repairs or replacement.
877 So.2d 774, 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (emphasis added). Section
627.702(1), Florida Statutes, is triggered only when an insured building is rendered a "total loss" as defined by Florida courts. §
627.702(1), Fla. Stat. Thus, in order for appellees' claim to fall within the scope of section
627.702(1), appellees must first establish that there was a "total loss" of an insured building....
...As to the issue presented concerning applicability of the VPL statute raised on appeal, we certify the same question certified by this court in Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.,
943 So.2d at 823, as a question of great public importance: DOES SECTION
627.702(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (2004), REFERRED TO AS THE VALUED POLICY LAW, REQUIRE AN INSURANCE CARRIER TO PAY THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY TO AN OWNER OF A BUILDING DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS WHEN THE BUILDING IS DAMAGED IN PART BY A COVERED PERIL...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4668, 2007 WL 935015
...Dees of Milam, Howard, Nicandri, Dees & Gillam, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant. J. Nixon Daniel, III, and Terrie L. Didier of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, appeals a final summary judgment and argues that the Valued Policy Law, as set forth in section 627.702, Florida Statutes, does not apply to condominium unit owners' insurance policies....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 223, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 541, 2008 WL 794861
...1st DCA 2007), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance: DOES THE ENABLING STATUTE FOR CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, §
627.351(6), FLA. STAT. (2004), PRECLUDE AN AWARD OF POLICY LIMITS UNDER THE VALUED POLICY LAW, §
627.702(1), FLA....
...at 491-92. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. At the time the First District issued its decision in Ueberschaer, another of its decisions certifying the following related question was already pending review in this Court: DOES SECTION 627.702(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (2004), REFERRED TO AS THE VALUED POLICY LAW, REQUIRE AN INSURANCE CARRIER TO PAY THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY TO AN OWNER OF A BUILDING DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS WHEN THE BUILDING IS DAMAGED IN PART BY A COVERED PERIL BUT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED BY AN EXCLUDED PERIL? See Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 1076922, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3787
...In
Ceballo, the issue was whether Florida’s Valued Policy Law (VPL)4 required the
insured to demonstrate an actual (incurred) loss before payment could be required
for ordinance and laws coverage. The present case does not involve a total loss or
4 The VPL, section 627.702, Florida Statutes (2016), requires an insurer to pay the
face amount for which a covered property was insured if the property is a total loss
as a result of a covered peril (with additional provisions not applicable here).
7
the VPL, and Mr....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...The Ganzemullers
contended in the trial court, as they do here, that Omega improperly required them to
pay a deductible when Omega invoked its right to repair the property. They argue that
subsection
627.7011(5)(e), Florida Statutes (2015), which references subsection
627.702(7), prohibits an insurer from requiring that the insured pay a deductible when
the insurer invokes its right to repair property damage, regardless of whether the
damage is a partial or total loss....
...Ganzemullers did not have a viable claim. The trial court agreed and dismissed the
action with prejudice, determining that neither the policy nor Florida law supported the
Ganzemullers' cause of action. The issue on appeal is whether subsections
627.7011(5)(e) and
627.702(7) relieve the Ganzemullers and potential class members
from the obligation to pay deductibles when Omega invokes its option to repair partial
losses.
This court conducts a de novo review of an order granting a motion to
dismiss....
....
Daniels v. Fla. Dep't of Health,
898 So. 2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2005); Bioscience West, Inc. v.
Gulfstream Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
185 So. 3d 638, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). The issue
here is one of statutory and contractual interpretation.
Section
627.702 is titled "Valued policy law." Subsection (1)(a) addresses
the total loss of property and provides that "the insurer's liability under the policy for
such total loss, if caused by a covered peril, shall be in the amount of money for which
such property was so insured as specified in the policy and for which a premium has
been charged and paid." §
627.702(1)(a)....
...which the policy limits were the same as those in effect on
the date on which the loss occurred, equal to that portion of
the premium paid for limits of insurance on the structure in
excess of the cost of replacement.
§
627.702(7).
Section
627.7011 is titled "Homeowners' policies; offer of replacement
cost coverage and law and ordinance coverage." Among other things, the statute
specifies those policies or endorsements that an insurer must offer prior to issuing a
homeowner's insurance policy. Subsection (5)(e) provides that the statute does not
"[p]rohibit an insurer from exercising its right to repair damaged property in compliance
with its policy and s.
627.702(7)." §
627.7011(5)(e).
Even though subsection
627.702(7) is contained within the statute that
addresses total losses, the Ganzemullers argue that the reference to it in subsection
627.7011(5)(e) makes subsection
627.702(7) equally applicable to partial losses....
...Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist.,
604 So. 2d 452, 455
(Fla. 1992). And if the language of a statute is unambiguous, the court will not look
beyond the statute's plain language. Daniels,
898 So. 2d at 64.
-4-
Subsection
627.702(1) specifically deals with total losses, and subsection
(7) addresses the insurer's right to repair without contribution by the insured "in lieu of
any liability created by subsection (1)." Thus, these subsections preclude the insur...
...se things that an
insurer must offer prior to issuing a homeowner's policy. Subsection (5)(e) makes clear
that section
627.7011 does not "[p]rohibit an insurer from exercising its right to repair
damaged property in compliance with its policy and s.
627.702(7)." §
627.7011(5)(e).
Nothing in this language suggests a statutory intent to eliminate policy deductibles for
partial losses as well as total losses where the insurer elects to make repairs. Our
conclusion is buttressed by the fact that subsection
627.702(7) provides that the
insurer's repair or replacement of damaged property is in lieu of liability under
subsection
627.702(1), which deals with the insurer's liability under the policy for a
covered total loss.
In summary, the pertinent statutory sections relied on by the Ganzemullers
do not eliminate an insured's obligation to pay the re...
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21256
...ANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge. Appellant, Independent Fire, appeals from a summary final judgment holding it liable for the policy limits on a policy covering the contents of appellee’s mobile home. The only issue presented by this appeal is whether section 627.702, Florida Statutes (Supp.1980), applies to an insurance policy covering the contents of a mobile home. The policy issued by appellant insured the contents of appellee’s mobile home for up to $6,000. The mobile home and its contents were totally destroyed by fire. Appellee successfully contended in the trial court that section 627.702, the Valued Policy Law, applies....
...in the same manner as other buildings and structures. The burden of establishing the amount of one’s loss is no greater in the case of the contents of a mobile home than of any other building. We therefore REVERSE. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. . Section 627.702, Florida Statutes (Supp....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 6902, 2006 WL 1210316
...Specifically, any additional claim or claims based on “other coverages under the policy,” which remain pending in the lower tribunal at this time, and which arise out of the same contract for insurance and from the same incident causing loss are necessarily related to the claim applying the Valued Policy Law, Section 627.702, Florida Statutes, to the contract....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1071, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1736, 1988 WL 40532
...“The defendant was unable to produce evidence of the purchase price of the personal property in the house. The State argues that this conceals the true value of the property and would have forced All State to pay the replacement cost of the property under the terms of the policy and pursuant to Florida Statute 627.702....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 224, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 545, 2008 WL 794908
...McKenzie of McKenzie and Hall, P.A., Pensacola, FL, for Respondents. PER CURIAM. We have for review State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Ondis,
962 So.2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance: DOES SECTION
627.702(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (2004), REFERRED TO AS THE VALUED POLICY LAW, REQUIRE AN INSURANCE CARRIER TO PAY THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY TO AN OWNER OF A BUILDING DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS WHEN THE BUILDING IS DAMAGED IN PART BY A COVERED PERIL BUT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED BY AN EXCLUDED PERIL? Id....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ds of Alford's USF & G's policy even though that debt was fully satisfied by proceeds of the Allstate policy in which Cooper was the named insured. Furthermore, the Springfield decision was based upon the provisions of the Florida Valued Policy Law, section 627.702, Florida Statutes (1981), as they existed in 1964....
...Based on this reasoning, we held that Springfield could not escape liability for paying the face amount of its insurance policy upon the assertion that another property insurer had already satisfied the total value of the insured's loss. But that rationale is not applicable in this case. Section 627.702(3)(a), as amended effective July 3, 1980 (and thus controlling on the dispute in this case), now excludes application of the Valued Policy Law in certain cases, including when: Insurance policies are issued or renewed by more than one company insuring the same building ......
...See, §
627.405, Florida Statutes (1981); 30 Fla.Jur.2d, Insurance, § 479, et seq. [2] *1099 Cooper's failure to notify Alford, and presumably Alford's insurer, USF & G, of his duplicate insurance coverage with Allstate, falls squarely within this exception of section
627.702 and compels that substantial significance be given the trial court's finding that Cooper acted without plaintiff's knowledge....
...Alford, and the record does not indicate that Cooper informed USF & G of such additional insurance on the property either. Yet, in 1981 it was clearly Cooper's legal obligation to so inform the owners and their insurers of this additional insurance. § 627.702, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13129, 1992 WL 389041
...Accordingly, the final summary judgment regarding attorney’s fees, costs and interest is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . Day’s home was totally destroyed by the fire; as such, section 627.702, Florida Statutes (1989), would apply....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2015 WL 8519512
...Smith and Lissette Gonzalez of Cole, Scott, Kissane, P.A., Miami, for
Appellee.
LEWIS, J.
Appellants, Norman David Freeman and Christy Ann Freeman, appeal a final
summary judgment entered in favor of Appellee, American Integrity Insurance
Company of Florida. Appellants argue that section 627.702, Florida Statutes (2008),
Florida’s Valued Policy Law (“FVPL” or “VPL”), applied to their insurance claim,
entitling them to recover the full policy limits for the total loss of their mobile home,
or at least a genuine issue of material fact remained about its applicability....
...liability under the policy for such total loss, if caused by a covered peril,
shall be in the amount of money for which such property was so insured
as specified in the policy and for which a premium has been charged
and paid.
§ 627.702, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Motion”), asserting that appellants’ amended complaint failed to state a
cause of action because (i) the dispute between the parties had been
resolved by the appraisal process and resulting award, and (ii) the amended
2
Florida’s Valued Policy Law, codified in section 627.702 of the Florida
Statutes, establishes an insurer’s liability for a total loss due to a covered
peril as “the amount of money for which such property was so insured as
specified in the policy. . . .” § 627.702(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15626
...The Court should have granted insurer’s motion for a directed verdict upon the claim under the policy covering the contents. However, once liability is found on the policy insuring the building, which was a total loss, the “Valued Policy Law”, Section 627.702, F.S., applies....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
policy and s.
627.702(7).” (emphasis added). Section
627.702(7), in turn, provides: Nothing herein
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4433, 1995 WL 238757
...It is from this summary judgment that the Halleoms appeal. In support of their argument that, notwithstanding the “other insurance” clauses contained in the two policies, Allstate and USAA are prohibited from prorating their payments, the Halleoms rely principally upon section 627.702(2), Florida Statutes (1993), which must be read together with section 627.702(1): (1) In the event of the total loss of any building, structure, mobile home ..., or manufactured building ......
...to pay “the actual amount of such loss,” notwithstanding the presence of “other insurance” clauses in the policies. The trial court concluded, correctly we believe, that the “valued policy law” was unavailing to the Hall-eoms because of section 627.702(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), added in 1980....
...llstate, and an additional $16,800.00 from U.S.F. & G.). Therefore, the court concluded that, as between the two, the Coopers were equitably more deserving than was Alford. The present case, however, includes the additional fact that, because of section 627.702(3)(a) and the “other insurance” clauses, Allstate and USAA were entitled to prorate their payments, so that only the combined actual losses of the parties were required to be compensated....
...the true state of affairs to USAA, it would have cancelled their policy, thereby eliminating their obligation to pay premiums, as well as any claim based upon that policy. We believe that the trial court’s summary final judgment is consistent with section 627.702(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), and with the “other insurance” clauses contained in both policies....
