Slayton v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D11–2716.,5D11–2716. |
| Citation | 103 So.3d 934 |
| Parties | Therese SLAYTON, Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jeremy L. Hogan, Orlando, for Appellant.
Jason R. Urbanowicz, of Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McClain, Orlando, for Appellee.
Therese Slayton appeals from the entry of a directed verdict in favor of Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”) on her breach of contract claim. The trial court concluded that Slayton did not establish that the insurer had failed to comply with the terms of the insurance policy in question. We affirm.
It is undisputed that on April 15, 2009, Universal issued a homeowner's insurance policy to Slayton covering her Orlando home. The policy provided that the covered property losses to buildings would be settled as follows:
b. Buildings under Coverage A or B at replacement cost without deduction for depreciation, subject to the following:
(1) If, at the time of loss, the amount of the insurance in this policy on the damaged building is 80% or more of the full replacement cost of the building immediately before the loss, we will pay the cost to repair or replace, after application of deductible and without deduction for depreciation, but not more than the least of the following amounts:
(a) The limit of liability under this policy that applies to the building;
(b) The replacement cost of that part of the building damaged for like construction and use on the same premises; or
(c) The necessary amount actually spent to repair or replace the damaged building.
On July 25, 2009, Slayton's home suffered damage from a windstorm. Universal estimated that the cost of repair would be $28,915.87. Slayton, however, submitted an estimate prepared by a public adjuster for $61,638.00.
Universal subsequently tendered a check to Slayton in the amount of $27,915.87, the total of Universal's estimate minus the $1,000.00 deductible. On February 10, 2010, Universal notified Slayton in writing that “the amount of $27,915.87 does not necessarily constitute a full and final settlement of your claim for damages associated with your claimed loss” and that Slayton could “submit supplemental claims for any damages discovered in the covered reconstruction and repair of the above mentioned property.”
Slayton negotiated the check but did not submit any supplemental claims to Universal. Instead, on March 29, 2010, she filed the instant lawsuit and the case ultimately proceeded to trial.
At the conclusion of Slayton's case, Universal moved for a directed verdict arguing, inter alia, that its decision to pay the amount of its estimate (less the deductible) and then consider supplemental claims for additional damages discovered during or arising from the repairs was consistent with the terms of its insurance policy. That argument had merit. The insurance provision cited above unambiguously limited Universal's liability for the replacement or repair costs to the lesser of the policy limits, the replacement costs for like construction and use, or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmetto 241 LLC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
...its coverage position letter, and thus cannot support a breach of contract claim. Id. at 15-17 (citing Slayton v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ).In response, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant breached the policy by refusing to provide coverage for th......
-
Dorra v. Rockhill Ins. Co., CASE NO.: 19-CV-20169-SMITH/LOUIS
...causality event); Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 224 So. 3d 259, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (same); Slayton v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 934, 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (same). Here, the evidence supports Plaintiff's characterization of his request as a request for additio......
-
Chavez v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co.
...that its order "does not preclude [Chavez] from submitting supplemental claims" pursuant to Slayton v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (finding payment of an insurance claim did not constitute breach of contract as insured was allowed to submi......
-
Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co.
...payment was based on the estimate prepared by its independent adjuster. In support, Tower Hill relies on Slayton v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 103 So.3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).As in this case, the underlying action in Slayton was for breach of contract, resulting from a disagreement ......
-
Chapter 4
...insured property distinguishes an open policy from a valued policy). Florida: Slayton v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 103 So.3d 934 (Fla. App. 2012); Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Cox, 943 So.2d 823 (Fla. Dist. App. 2006) (purpose of a valued policy law is ......