BRIAN HOLCOMB AND KAREN HOLCOMB
v.
SAFETY SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

M.D. Fla. | 2026-01-13
No. 2:18-CV-103
758 F. Supp. 3d 1338 2026 FFL 984 District Court, M.D. Florida (2026) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that Florida's Valued Policy Law does not apply to surplus lines insurance policies unless specifically stated.


Headnotes

[1] A motion in limine is a procedural tool to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before it is offered at trial.

[2] Motions in limine are typically disfavored, and the better practice is to rule on admissibility as issues arise during trial.

Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Except as specifically stated in the VPL statute, a surplus lines carrier "is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 627."”

Establishes that surplus lines insurers are generally exempt from Chapter 627 (which contains the Valued Policy Law) unless the statute explicitly applies to them.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding Florida's Valued Policy Law (VPL). The insurance policy at issue was issued pursu…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

did not file a response and the time to respond has expired.

A motion in limine is a “motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984).

“'Motions in limine are typically disfavored; the better practice is to rule upon questions of admissibility as they arise at trial.” Marquez v. Clear Blue

Specialty Ins. Co., 758 F. Supp. 3d 1338, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2024) (citation omitted).

Defendant seeks to prevent plaintiffs from introducing evidence regarding Florida's Valued Policy Law (VPL), Fla. Stat. § 627.702, at trial. Defendant argues that the plain language of the Policy reflects that it was issued pursuant to Florida Surplus Lines Law, which falls under Chapter 626. However, plaintiff has previously argued that Valued Policy Law applies to this case and controls this insurance policy. (Doc. #49, pp. 3-7.)

The face of the Policy is clear that the Policy is a Surplus Lines policy. (Doc. #4, p.8) (“THIS INSURANCE IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE FLORIDA SURPLUS LINES LAW.")

“Surplus-lines insurance is a type of insurance that a potential insured may obtain when the general-lines insurance market fails to provide a policy to cover the type of risk involved. To ensure that there would be insurance companies willing to provide this type of coverage in our state, the Florida Legislature created a statutory scheme that permits out-of-state 'unauthorized' insurers to provide surplus-lines coverage through in-state ‘surplus-lines agents,' who serve as middlemen between surplus-lines insurers and 'producing agents/general-lines agents,' who, in turn, provide surplus-lines policies to insureds.” Essex Ins. Co. v. Zota, 985 So. 2d 1036, 1040 n.2 (Fla. 2008) (citations omitted).

Ahmed v. Hamilton Ins. DAC, 409 So. 3d 704, 707 n.5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025). On the other hand, “Florida's Valued Policy Law, codified in section 627.702 of the Florida Statutes, establishes an insurer's liability for a total loss due to a covered peril as 'the amount of money for which such property was so insured as specified in the policy.’” Williams v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 326 So. 3d 172, 173 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quoting § 627.702(1), Fla. Stat. (2017)). “The purpose of Florida's Value Policy Law ‘is to fix the measure of damages payable to the insured in case of total loss,' and the statute's plain language 'requires an insurer to pay that amount listed on the face of the policy in the event of a total loss without the necessity of any additional proof of the actual value of the loss incurred.'” Evanston Ins. Co. v. Etcetera, Etc Inc., No. 2:18-CV-103-FTM-99MRM, 2018 WL 3526672, n.1 (M.D. Fla. July 23, 2018) (quoting Ceballo v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 967 So. 2d 811, 813-14 (Fla. 2007); Fla. Stat. § 627.702).

Except as specifically stated in the VPL statute, a surplus lines carrier “is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 627.” Bryant v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co., 271 So. 3d 1013, 1019 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citing § 626.913(4), Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing that “except as may be specifically stated to apply to surplus lines insurers, the provisions of chapter 627 do not apply to surplus lines insurance”)).

See also Ceballos v.

Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., No. 1:21-CV-22543-KMM, 2022 WL 17037693, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2022) (“[T]he legislature has explicitly stated that Chapter 627 does not apply to surplus lines insurance, unless it specifically states that it does.”). Therefore, the motion will be granted as to evidentiary matters unless plaintiff can identify specific areas which have been made applicable to Surplus Lines insurance.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony Florida's Valued Policy Law F.S. 627.702 (Doc. #70) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff may not introduce evidence or argument before the jury suggesting that Florida's Valued Policy Law (VPL) applies to this case without prior approval of the Court.

DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 13th day of January 2025.

John & Steel JOHN E. STEELE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: Counsel of Record


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Holcomb v. Safety Specialty Ins. Co., 758 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (M.D. Fla. 2026)
    …ffered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). “‘Motions in limine are typically disfavored; the better practice is to rule upon questions of admissibility as they arise at trial.” Marquez v. Clear Blue Specialty Ins. Co., 758 F. Supp. 3d 1338, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2024) (citation omitted). Defendant seeks to prevent plaintiffs from introducing evidence regarding Florida’s Valued Policy Law (VPL), Fla. Stat. § 627.702, at trial. Defendant argues that the plain language of the Policy…
  • …en evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.’” [] Motions in limine are typically disfavored; the better practice is to rule upon questions of admissibility as they arise at trial.” Marquez v. Clear Blue Specialty Ins. Co., 758 F. Supp. 3d 1338, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2024) (internal citations omitted). As the Court previously stated: The material fact that is vigorously disputed by both sides is whether the wind caused the loss or the flood from storm surge caused the loss, or a combination of b…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw