STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
BOYD NICHOLS AND LINDA NICHOLS, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
State Farm appealed orders requiring it to pay subsurface sinkhole damage awards within sixty days of appraisal awards, arguing a Florida statute permitted withholding payment until homeowners contracted for repairs. The court held that the statute was permissive rather than mandatory, and the policy language requiring payment within sixty days controlled.
The court held that section 627.707(5)(b), Florida Statutes, is permissive rather than mandatory, and therefore the policy language requiring payment of subsurface repairs within sixty days after appraisal award is binding and controls over the statutory provision.
[1] An insurance policy provision requiring payment of an appraisal award within sixty days of its filing is binding on the parties.
[2] A statute permitting an insurer to limit payment for subsurface sinkhole repairs until the policyholder contracts for repairs is permissive, not mandatory.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We construe this language as permissive, not mandatory. Because it is permissive, the policy language that requires payment of subsurface repairs within sixty days after the appraisal award is not in conflict with the statute and is binding on the parties to the insurance contract.”
The court's key holding that the statute permitting delayed payment is not mandatory and does not override the policy's sixty-day payment requirement.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn consolidated appeals involving multiple homeowners' claims, appraisal awards separately itemized above-ground and subsurface sinkhole damages. Stat…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sinkhole Loss Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
In these consolidated appeals, we address disputes between State Farm and its insureds concerning when it is obligated to pay for subsurface sinkhole repats under its homeowners’ policies. Relying on a statute, State Farm contends that it need not pay for these repats until after the homeowners enter into contracts for the *905performance of the repairs, notwithstanding language in its policies to the contrary. The insureds contend that the policy language, not the statute, controls and that payment is due within sixty days after the amount of the loss is settled by appraisal. We agree with the insureds and accordingly affirm.
In each of the cases here, appraisal awards separately listed the amount of above-ground damages and the amount of subsurface damages caused by sinkholes. State Farm promptly tendered a check to each of the homeowners for the total amount designated as above-ground damages, but it did not tender the amount designated as subsurface damages, contending that that amount was not due until the homeowners entered into contracts for those repairs.
The homeowners’ policies clearly require State Farm to pay the full amount of an appraisal award within sixty days of the award. They provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
SECTION I — CONDITIONS
10. Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable:
a. 20 days after we receive your proof of loss and reach agreement with you; or
b. 60 days after we receive your proof of loss and:
(1) there is an entry of a final judgment; or
(2) there is a filing of an appraisal award with us.
Notwithstanding this language, State Farm contends that it is authorized by section 627.707(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), to withhold the funds until the homeowners have contracted for the repairs. This statute provides in pertinent part:
The insurer may limit its payment to the actual cash value of the sinkhole loss, not including underpinning or grouting or any other repair technique performed below the existing foundation of the building, until the policyholder enters into a contract for the performance of building stabilization or foundation repairs. After the policyholder enters into the contract, the insurer shall pay the amounts necessary to begin and perform such repairs as the work is performed and the expenses are incurred. The insurer may not require the policyholder to advance payment for such repairs.
We construe this language as permissive, not mandatory. Because it is permissive, the policy language that requires payment of subsurface repairs within sixty days after the appraisal award is not in conflict with the statute and is binding on the parties to the insurance contract.
We decline to address the issue of entitlement to attorney’s fees below because the trial court has not yet ruled on this issue. We also find it unnecessary to address the issue concerning the construction of section 627.702(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), which is addressed in one of the appeals.
AFFIRMED.
EVANDER, J. and MOXLEY, J.D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Servs., Inc., 141 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2016)…ecause the PIP statute is incorporated into the policy, it had the unilateral right to ignore the only payment methodology referenced in the policy. Similar reasoning was rejected by the fifth district in State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Nichols, 21 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), a case involving a claim under a homeowner’s policy. Id. at 67. Based on the reasoning explained in Kingsway, we reject GEICO’s argument that it was permitted to calculate reimbursements in accordance with the Medicare fee sch…
-
Kingsway Amigo Ins. Co. v. Ocean Health, Inc., 63 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ecause the PIP statute is incorporated into the policy, it had the unilateral right to ignore the only payment methodology referenced in the policy. Similar reasoning was rejected by the fifth district in State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Nichols, 21 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), a case involving a claim under a homeowner’s policy. We adopt the trial court’s analysis of Nichols as it applies to this case:q In Nichols, the insurer argued that it was entitled to pay in accordance with the limitation langu…
-
Orthopedic Specialists v. Allstate Ins. Co., 177 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…incorporated into the policy, [the insurance company] had the unilateral right to ignore the only payment methodology referenced in the policy.” Id. We adopted the trial court’s reasoning, which relied on State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Nichols, 21 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009): If the [insurer] wanted to take advantage of the permissive fee schedule, it should have clearly and unambiguously selected that payment methodology in a manner so that the insured patient and health care providers would be awa…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence