Panettieri v. People's Trust Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 July 2022
• Docket Number: 4D20-2624
• Parties: Angelo PANETTIERI, Appellant, v. PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

344 So.3d 35

Angelo PANETTIERI, Appellant,
v.
PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 4D20-2624

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 27, 2022]

Mark A. Nation of The Nation Law Firm, LLP, Longwood, for appellant.

Mark D. Tinker of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Tampa, and Brett Frankel, Jonathan Sabghir and Jake A. Tover of People's Trust Insurance Company, Deerfield Beach, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR A WRITTEN OPINION OR FOR CERTIFICATION

Conner, J.

We grant the appellee's motion for written opinion, deny the motion for certification,

344 So.3d 37

withdraw our opinion dated April 20, 2022, and issue the following in its place:

Angelo Panettieri ("Insured") appeals the final summary judgment in favor of People's Trust Insurance Company ("People's Trust"). Insured argues that the trial court erred in entering its final summary judgment determining: (1) that the water damage exclusion endorsement ("WDE Endorsement") to the operative homeowner's insurance policy applied to Insured's claim; and (2) Insured's entire claim, including tear out costs, was limited to $10,000 in coverage under the policy's limited water damage coverage endorsement ("LWD Endorsement"). Our recent opinion in Dodge v. People's Trust Insurance Co ., 321 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), controls the determination of Insured's first argument, based on the same type of loss and substantially the same policy language. Therefore, we affirm Insured's first argument on appeal based on our analysis in Dodge . However, because we did not expressly resolve the Insured's argument regarding tear out costs in Dodge , we write here to explain why we affirm as to this second argument as well.

Background

Insured obtained a homeowner's all-risk insurance policy issued by People's Trust. While the policy was in full force and effect, Insured suffered water damage caused by wear and tear, deterioration, and corrosion of the plumbing system under Insured's home. After Insured submitted a claim to People's Trust, People's Trust accepted coverage of the claim. However, People's Trust maintained that the policy limited coverage of the claim to $10,000 and issued payment in that amount. Insured disagreed with the payment amount and filed suit against People's Trust for breach of contract.

People's Trust moved for summary judgment maintaining its position that coverage was limited to $10,000 under the LWD Endorsement. Insured filed a competing motion for summary judgment, arguing in part that the LWD Endorsement limited only the portion of the claim seeking payment for direct losses due to water damage to $10,000, but did not limit the portion of the claim seeking payment for the cost of tearing out and repairing the portion of Insured's property needed for access to repair the plumbing system. In other words, Insured contended that even if the portion of the claim seeking payment for water damage was limited to $10,000 under the LWD Endorsement, the limit did not apply to the portion of the claim seeking payment for tear out costs.

After the trial court granted People's Trust's summary judgment motion, denied Insured's competing motion, and entered final summary judgment in favor of People's Trust, Insured gave notice of appeal.

Appellate Analysis

"Because it is a legal question, a trial court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo ." Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Jones , 77 So. 3d 254, 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P. , 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) ). Similarly, interpretation of an insurance contract is a legal question reviewed de novo . Arias v. Affirmative Ins. Co. , 944 So. 2d 1195...