Within the latest resolution Marquez v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance coverage Firm, No. 6:23-cv-2025-ACC-DCI, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219390 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2024), the U.S. District Court docket for the Center District of Florida granted the insurer’s movement in limine and excluded proof and testimony relating to substitute value worth of damages, matching, and to restrict damages to direct bodily loss.
Background:
Plaintiffs, Luz Marquez and Gilberto Santiago (“Plaintiffs”), sued Clear Blue Specialty Insurance coverage Firm (“Clear Blue”) for denial of protection beneath their owners coverage (the “Coverage”) for harm to their residence allegedly attributable to Hurricane Ian. The Coverage contained a provision that acknowledged that “[Clear Blue] pays not more than the precise money worth of the harm till precise restore or substitute is full…” Clear Blue asserted that the Plaintiffs had not repaired or changed the broken property and so they may solely probably recuperate precise money worth primarily based on the language of the Coverage and pursuant to Florida Statute § 627.7011(3)(a), which gives that within the occasion of a loss for which a dwelling or private property is insured on the premise of substitute prices, the insurer should initially pay a minimum of the precise money worth of the insured loss, much less any relevant deductible.
Precise Money Worth v. Substitute Price Worth:
With a view to perceive Clear Blue’s arguments, it is very important talk about the distinction between precise money worth (“ACV”) and substitute value worth (“RCV”).
The precise money worth of the direct bodily loss is mostly outlined as “truthful market worth” or “[r]eplacement value minus regular depreciation,” the place depreciation is outlined as a “decline in an asset’s worth due to use, put on, obsolescence, or age”; thus, the distinction between ACV and RCV is that depreciation is withheld from ACV. Goff v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 999 So. 2nd 684, 690 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2008).
The Federal Determination:
Clear Blue filed a movement in limine to exclude proof and argument associated to the RCV calculation of damages and matching damages, and to limit proof to solely objects that sustained bodily loss. Clear Blue argued that as a result of Plaintiffs weren’t entitled on this case to cost for repairs or matching prices that they had not but incurred, proof or testimony relating to these issues should be excluded at trial. Clear Blue additionally argued that the worth of non-damaged objects was irrelevant to the precise money worth dedication and didn’t cowl contingent future mismatch, or superior funds for repairs.
The Court docket granted Clear Blue’s movement in limine and held that Clear Blue was obligated to “pay not more than the precise money worth of the harm till precise restore or substitute is full” and excluded proof arguments associated to substitute value worth.
Authorized Implications:
This resolution is vital as a result of in circumstances the place an insured/plaintiff doesn’t have any proof of repairing or changing broken property, insurance coverage carriers can exclude any substitute value proof from trial which may additional restrict the quantity that an insured/plaintiff can recuperate.
About The Writer
