Greenaker v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D948 (Fla. May 8, 2026):

The plaintiffs sued the defendant insurer for storm damage to their home in November 2020. They alleged that they provided an estimate documenting covered damages which the insurer refused to pay.

The policy provided replacement cost coverage but required the insurer to initially pay at least actual cash value, then pay remaining amounts as the work was performed and the expenses incurred.

The defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the plaintiff’s evidence of both replacement cost value and actual cash value, arguing that the lack of completed repairs undermined replacement cost evidence. The defendant further argued that the plaintiffs had no admissible proof of actual cash value, because their estimate was only for “replacement cost.”

The defendant sought to exclude this evidence through a motion in limine, which the trial court granted. However, the court then entered final judgement for the defendant, concluding that because the plaintiffs had no proof of damages under the proper measure, judgement against them was warranted.

The appellate court reversed. It found there is no recognized procedure that authorizes the entry of final judgement based on a pretrial ruling in limine. A motion in limine is to prevent improper evidence from being mentioned at trial, and it becomes improper when it is used to do more than exclude evidence, effectively functioning as a substitute for summary judgement or other recognized dispositive procedures.