The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as
a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24
million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid
$8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found
hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the
insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff
sued for breach of the insurance policy.
The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that
plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV)
because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The
policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were
completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were
not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV
damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold
the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main
allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the
repairs to unlock the RCV.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when
an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding
coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent
provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial.
The court found the issue to be whether the contractual
language designed to preclude certain coverage until after
repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those
damages at trial when repairs were not complete.
The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this
issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from
the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must
look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which
is the court which would have heard this case if it was in
state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed
this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez,
427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court
found that a breach of contract action is designed to
adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but
also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not
occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of
the RCV.
This court also noted basic Florida contract principles
compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the
nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can
demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV
damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a
full denial and partial denial did not compel a different
result. It found the policy required the carrier to
acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages,
and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling
the insured to all of the damages available.
Riva Del Lago Condominium Association, Inc. v. Steadfast Insurance Company; Case No. 2:24-cv-1056-KCD-KRH; Middle District Fla. July 7, 2026.