.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Federal Court Holds Replacement Cost Value Coverage Requires Completed Repairs and an Actual Cost Value Estimate

Monterrey’s Grill, Inc. v. Axis Surplus Insurance Company, 2025 WL 1379574 (N.D. Fla. May 13, 2025)

June 1, 2025

by Michael A. Packer

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance carrier in a dispute arising from a hurricane property damage claim. The court found that the insured was not entitled to replacement cost value (replacement cost value) damages because repairs had not been completed and no actual cash value (actual cash value) estimate was submitted. Citing Florida precedent, the court held that under the unambiguous policy terms, the insurer’s obligation to pay replacement cost value damages does not arise until repairs are made.

Following a property damage claim which arose out of Hurricane Sally in 2020, United States District Court Judge T. Kent Wetherell, II granted Axis Surplus Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment. Following the loss, the insured submitted a sworn proof of loss for the whole loss in the amount of $662,144.84, which was based on a replacement cost value estimate. No actual cost value estimate was submitted on behalf of the insured. Axis determined coverage was available for the loss; however, it concluded the damages were below the deducible. Although the insured made some repairs, the cost of the restorations did not exceed the deductible. The insured claimed to not have the funds to make all of the repairs.

The judge agreed with Axis that the policy was unambiguous and required the insured to complete the repairs before Axis became liable for replacement cost value damages. Further, the insured had only submitted a replacement cost value estimate; as such, there was no competing actual cash value damage estimate to support a claim for breach of contract.

In the ruling, the judge cited to the Florida Supreme Court case of Ceballo v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 967 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2007), which found that an insurance company’s liability for replacement cost does not arise until the repair or replacement has been completed. In addition, the court pointed out that it had previously granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer where an insured was seeking additional damages when only a replacement cost value estimate had been submitted (no actual cash value estimate) and the undisputed evidence showed that no repairs had been made to the property. See, Metal Prods. Co., LLC v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 1345525, at 2 (N.D. Fla. April 12, 201), aff’d, 2022 WL 104618 (11th Cir. January 11, 2022). 


 

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – June 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.