Corey K. Setterlund

Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez and Cuevas, Case No. 6D2024-1194, 2026 WL 370220 (Fla. 6^th DCA Feb. 6, 2026).

Universal issued a homeowners’ insurance policy to the plaintiffs, which provided replace cost value for covered damages. The subject policy stated it would pay, at the least, actual cash value of the loss less than any deductible, then pay any “remaining amounts necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred.”  After issuance, the plaintiffs filed a claim for damages caused by a storm. Universal denied the claim for damage and the plaintiffs sued for breach of contract. During trial, the plaintiffs testified that they did not make any repairs yet and, over Universal’s objection, presented a contractor’s estimate of the replacement cost value of the repairs necessary to fix the property. Universal argued that since no repairs had been made, the correct measure of damages was actual cash value, per the terms of the subject policy. The trial court overruled Universal’s objection to the replacement cost value estimate, presented and overruled a Motion of Limine and, after the jury ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, a motion for directed verdict regarding exclusion of the replacement cost value estimate. Universal appealed the decision.

The Sixth DCA reviewed Florida Statute Section 627.7011(3)(a), which has similar language to Universal’s policy provision regarding replacement cost value and initially paying actual cash value. The court noted that the Second, Third, and Fourth DCAs had recently opined on the issue at hand: may policy language that allows a carrier to deny a claim, and, when an insured sues their carrier for coverage, bar the insured from presenting evidence of replacement cost value, as the policy initially requires payment of actual cash value? The Third DCA determined that an insured can present replacement cost value evidence, finding that Florida Statute §627.7011(3)(a) is based on the carrier providing coverage for the loss, not an insured suing their carrier for breach of contract after wrongfully denying the claim. The Fourth DCA came to the opposite conclusion. However, there was an important fact that the Fourth had to consider: the insureds sold their property without making any repairs. Thus, repairs by the insureds could never be made.

The Sixth DCA followed the opinions of the Second and Third DCAs (and the dissenting opinion from the Fourth DCA), finding that the language of the policy and Florida Statute are for “covered property loss” not during litigation when a carrier has been accused of wrongfully denying a claim. While Universal argued that the opinion is in conflict with Citizens Prop. Ins. Co. v. Manor House, LLC, 313 So.2d 579 (Fla. 2021), the court explained that the specific issue in Manor House was extra-contractual consequential damages, not evidence of contractual damages. As a result, the decision was affirmed.