Replacement Cost Coverage Limited

Courts May not Rewrite Clear & Unambiguous Policy

In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Irma Qureshi and George Guerrero, No. 4D2023-1338, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (July 24, 2024) the Court of Appeals was required to address the measure of damages recoverable for the breach of a replacement cost property insurance policy.

BACKGROUND

A jury awarded the insureds $57,836.83 in damages on their claim that Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”) breached some but not all of the coverage terms of the insureds’ property insurance policy by paying them only the $10,000 policy limit for damage caused by mold without including payment for the damage caused by the water leak at the property that resulted in the mold.

The insureds never repaired the damaged items described in an estimate they had submitted for reimbursement from Universal prior to selling their property or at any time after the loss.

The policy required actual replacement before an insured was entitled to replacement value after a loss, provided that Universal would not pay, “any amount for ‘diminution in value,’” defined in the policy as “any reduction in value of any covered property prior to or following repair or replacement as compared to the value of that property immediately before the loss.”

ANALYSIS

Universal argued that the trial court reversibly erred by allowing the insureds to introduce into evidence at trial the estimated repair costs for work that was never performed.

Courts have almost uniformly held that an insurance company’s liability for replacement cost does not arise until the repair or replacement has been completed.

In addition, courts, without dispute, are not authorized to rewrite clear and unambiguous contracts. The Court of Appeals concluded the insureds’ policy is clear and unambiguous. The insureds are not entitled to their repair costs unless and until work is performed and expenses are incurred.

Well established Florida law rejects an expansion of insurance coverage to include payment for estimated but not yet incurred repair costs because it would improperly create insurance coverage by waiver or estoppel.

CONCLUSION

Because the trial court impermissibly allowed the jury to consider evidence of estimated but not yet incurred repair costs in determining recoverable damages, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of damages. On remand, the trial court was directed to confine the proof at the new trial on damages to only those damages for which recovery is permitted under the policy’s clear and unambiguous terms.

ZALMA OPINION

Courts often have sympathy for insured’s who incurred damage but were not paid in full because – as with Irma Qureshi and George Guerrero – because they sold the house without completing or expending any money to do the repairs for which they had submitted an estimate. The policy, and the law, required that the insured’s only receive replacement cost funds if they actually spend the money. They did not and the court had no right to change the policy terms to allow them to obtain funds from their insurer to which they were not entitled.