When the insurer opted to repair the insured's damaged property, the insurer did not agree with the scope of the repairs. The Florida Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of the insured's lawsuit challenging the extent of the repairs. Robinson v. Florida Peninsula Ins. Co., 2015 LEXIS 16983 (Fla. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2015). Robinson's homeowner's policy provided Florida Peninsula Insurance Company (FPIC) an option to repair damaged property rather than make a cash payment. Robinson reported damage to his home and FPIC determined the loss was covered. FPIC exercised its option to repair and attempted to coordinate repairs through its contractor. Robinson questioned the scope and sufficiency of the contractor's proposed repairs and requested an appraisal. FPIC did not respond and eventually denied coverage because of Robinson's refusal to allow the contractor to complete the proposed repairs. Robinson eventually completed the repairs at his own expense. Robinson filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether FPIC properly exercised its option to repair, whether he was required to allow FPIC's contractor to repair his home without agreeing to the proposed repairs, and whether FPIC was entitled to deny coverage when he disputed the scope of the proposed repairs. FPIC filed a motion to abate the action and compel Robinson to comply with its right to repair his property. The trial court granted the motion. The appellate court reversed. If Robinson had completed the repairs, the abatement would likely be indefinite, even though FPIC conceded that Robinson was entitled to a monetary judgment at least in the amount of its contractor's estimate. Robinson could also be entitled to dispute the amount of the estimate.
Follow our page in Facebook "Insurance Online". from Insurance Law Hawaii
