— Insurer did not breach policy by paying its own determination of actual cash value of loss where insureds did not submit any competing ACV estimate prior to filing suit, but instead submitted estimate of replacement cash value for unperformed repairs under policy that provided that insurer was only liable for RCV damages once damaged property was actually repaired
AMY SMITH and MATTHEW SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Defendant. Circuit Court, 8th Judicial Circuit in and for Alachua County. Case No. 2023-CA-3587. Division L. February 6, 2025. George M. Wright, Judge. Counsel: Paul H. Green, Jr. Green Law Group, Jacksonville, for Plaintiffs. Shawn C. Haggerty, Andrew Biernacki Davis, Orlando for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ENTRY OFFINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court at hearing on January 21, 2025 on Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, filed August 27, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s Motion”), and the Court having reviewed Defendant’s Motion and Plaintiffs’ Response thereto, filed December 23, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs’ Response”), and all other relevant filings of record, and the Court having heard oral arguments from both parties’ counsel and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
The Court finds that Defendant has shown the nonexistence of any genuine dispute as to any material fact based on the record evidence and legal authority presented, and that all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom uncontrovertibly establish that Defendant is entitled to final judgment as a matter of law, for the following reasons:
1. Under Florida’s newly adopted summary judgment standard,1 the inquiry before the Court in ruling on Defendant’s Motion is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 371, 380 (2007) [20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S225a]. A party opposing summary judgment “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In Florida, the new Rule 1.510 “requires summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See, In Re: Amendments To Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.510, No. SC20-1490 (Dec. 31, 2020) [46 Fla. L. Weekly S6a] (per curiam) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
2. Under Florida law, an insurer may be entitled to summary judgment where an insured does not present a competing actual-cash-value (“ACV”) estimate in a breach-of-contract action. See, Goldberg v. Universal Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 302 So.3d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) [45 Fla. L. Weekly D2118b] (“While an insurer’s unilateral determination of the cash value of a loss does not entitle it to summary judgment in the face of a competing estimate of damages, the insurer should not be deemed to have breached the contract where it accepted coverage and paid the only estimate it received of the actual cash value of the loss.”); Metal Products Co., LLC v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 104618 (11th Cir. 2022) (affirming summary judgment for insurer and stating that “Ohio Security did not breach its contract with Metal Products . . . Metal Products [only] submitted an estimate that calculated the replacement cost damages to its buildings . . . The insurance policy states that no payment is made on a claim for replacement cost value ‘[u]ntil the lost or damaged property is actually repaired or replaced’ . . . Because Metal Products made no repairs, Ohio Security was not obligated to pay the replacement cost value of the buildings.”); CMR Constr. & Roofing, LLC v. Empire Indemnity Ins. Co., 843 Fed. Appx. 189, 192 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming summary judgment for insurer and stating “[t]he insurance policy provides that a claim for replacement cost value will not be paid ‘[u]ntil the lost or damaged property is actually repaired or replaced’ . . . [Here,] Empire could not have breached the insurance policy based on the replacement cost value because the ‘until and unless’ provision has not been satisfied . . . Empire could not have breached by not paying CMR’s estimated replacement cost value because CMR had not made any repairs covered by the policy . . . Nor could Empire have breached the insurance policy based on actual cash value because CMR did not and does not seek actual cash value.”).
3. Here, Plaintiffs did not submit any “competing” ACV estimates prior to filing suit. Indeed, the record was devoid of any summary judgment evidence submitted by Plaintiffs disputing Defendant’s claim valuation on an ACV basis. The only estimate submitted by Plaintiffs calculated damages at a replacement-cost-value (“RCV”) basis. Under the plain language of the policy, however, Defendant was only liable for the RCV damages upon Plaintiffs incurring costs to repair the damaged property. There is no record evidence demonstrating such repairs were performed or costs incurred.
4. Therefore, because there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant breached the clear and unambiguous terms of the subject insurance policy contract, Defendant is entitled to final summary judgment.
5. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the undisputed material facts and record evidence conclusively establishes the non-existence of any genuine dispute of fact that the Defendant did not breach its insurance policy contract with Plaintiffs prior to the filing of this suit, and therefore, the Court hereby grants final summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby enters final judgment in favor of the Defendant, AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, and against the Plaintiffs, AMY SMITH and MATTHEW SMITH; the Plaintiffs shall take nothing in this action, and the Defendant may go hence without delay; and the Court reserves jurisdiction on Defendant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to §768.79, §57.105, and/or §57.041, Fla. Stat. and applicable Florida law.
__________________
1Effective May 1, 2021, Florida’s amended Rule 1.510 now adopts the federal summary judgment standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (amongst two (2) other United States Supreme Court opinions) (citations omitted). See specifically, In Re: Amendments To Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.510, No. SC20-1490 (Dec. 31, 2020) [46 Fla. L. Weekly S6a] (per curiam).* * *