Associate Attorney
In Brennan and Anthony Calello v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Company, 20th Judicial Circuit of Lee County, the court granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer where homeowners sought additional payment under a replacement cost value (RCV) provision — despite having accepted actual cash value (ACV) and never completing repairs.
The plaintiffs’ roof sustained storm damage, and their insurer, Florida Peninsula, paid the ACV portion of the claim — calculated as the repair cost minus depreciation. The homeowners cashed the check and sold the property without ever performing the repairs.
Only later did they submit a claim for the full RCV — which triggered the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that the policy and Florida law required:
- Completion of repairs; and
- Ownership of the property at the time of the supplemental claim.
The court agreed. Citing Section 627.7011(3)(a), Florida Statutes, the court noted that payment of RCV benefits is contingent on actually repairing the damage. Since the homeowners did not complete repairs — and no longer owned the home — they had no entitlement to further reimbursement.
The court also applied Florida’s updated summary judgment standard, which asks whether the evidence presents “a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury, or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Here, the lack of dispute on material facts sealed the outcome.
Takeaway: If your client wants to recover RCV benefits after a storm loss, make sure they understand the policy requirements: repairs must be made, and they must still own the property. Accepting ACV without dispute — and selling the property without fixing it — likely forfeits any RCV claim.
At Boatman Ricci, we help policyholders and insurers alike evaluate coverage obligations and litigation strategies from claim to closure. Unsure whether you’re still eligible to recover under your insurance policy? Contact our team for a policy checkup.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.