Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

July 8, 2016 by admin

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Sinkhole claim

41 Fla. L. Weekly D1561a

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Sinkhole claim — Error to enter judgment for damages payable directly to insureds without regard to policy’s loss settlement provision, under which insurer had obligation to pay for repairs only as work was performed under subsurface repair contract
 
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. JAMES STIEBEN and JESSICA STIEBEN, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D14-4412. Opinion filed July 6, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Linda H. Babb, Judge. Counsel: Kara Berard Rockenbach and Lauren J. Smith of Methe & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant. George A. Vaka and Nancy A. Lauten of Vaka Law Group, Tampa, and Kenneth C. Thomas, Jr., of Marshall Thomas, PL, Tampa, for Appellees.

 

(SILBERMAN, Judge.) Citizens Property Insurance Corporation seeks review of a final judgment awarding the insureds, James and Jessica Stieben, $233,610.02 in damages for breach of a homeowner’s insurance policy. The cause of action arose after the parties disagreed as to the appropriate method of repairing sinkhole damage. We affirm the final judgment in all respects save for the award of money damages. We reverse to the extent that the trial court entered judgment for damages payable directly to the Stiebens without regard to the policy’s loss settlement provision. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Blaha, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D885, D887 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 8, 2016); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Amat, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D448, D450 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 19, 2016); Tower Hill Select Ins. Co. v. McKee, 151 So. 3d 2, 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), review denied, 163 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 2015). Under this provision, Citizens only has the obligation to pay for repairs as the work is performed under a subsurface repair contract. Blaha, 41 Fla. L. Weekly at D887; Amat, 41 Fla. L. Weekly at D450.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. (WALLACE and BLACK, JJ., Concur.)
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982