Notice of Property Insurance Claim

KK TAKEAWAY:

An unsigned letter of representation from the public adjuster does not constitute notice of claim.

BACKGROUND:

The Grays filed a breach of contract action concerning a claim for Hurricane Irma damages. Section 627.70132, Florida Statutes requires:

A claim, supplemental claim, or reopened claim under an insurance policy that provides property insurance, as defined in s. 624.604, for loss or damage caused by the peril of windstorm or hurricane is barred unless notice of the claim, supplemental claim, or reopened claim was given to the insurer in accordance with the terms of the policy within 3 years after the hurricane first made landfall or the windstorm caused the covered damage.

(May 19, 2023)

Fla. Stat. 627.70132 (2017).

The only document submitted within 3 years of the hurricane was an unsigned letter of representation between the Grays and their public adjuster. The Sixth District held there is no feasible construction of the statute that the document submission constitutes notice of a claim as required by statute.

Actual Cash Value Payment Analysis

SFRS SERVICES, LLC a/a/o

MICHAEL CARBONARA and MARY CARBONARA v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 6D23-118 (May 26, 2023))

KK TAKEAWAY:

If a policy requires depreciation to be determined by the carrier, the burden of proof is upon the carrier to demonstrate that it calculated depreciation.

BACKGROUND:

Insureds filed a claim for Hurricane Irma damage. Tower Hill assessed the damage to be $7,726.94, below the deductible. Insureds retained SFRS, who submitted a claim for $162,083.84. SFRS only valued the loss at replacement cost and did not include an actual cash value within their submission. At the close of SFRS’s case, Tower Hill moved for a directed verdict pointing out that SFRS only presented evidence of replacement cost value and Tower Hill’s only duty was to pay actual cash value. The trial court granted the directed verdict.

While the Sixth District stated that under ordinary circumstances, this point would be well-taken, Tower Hill’s policy defined actual cash value as:

[t]he cost to repair or replace covered property, at the time of loss or damage, whether that property has sustained partial or total loss damage, with material of like kind and quality, subject to a deduction for deterioration, depreciation and obsolescence as determined by ‘us.’

The Sixth District reversed the trial court, holding that by using “as determined by us” language, Tower Hill had the initial burden to prove the amount of depreciation.