JUAN LUCIANO AND VICKIE LUCIANO, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
The Lucianos appealed a summary judgment dismissing their breach of contract action against their homeowner's insurer on statute of limitations grounds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statute of limitations did not begin to run from the 2006 partial payment for skylight damage, but rather from the insurer's denial of the supplemental claim for roof damage in 2010, making the 2011 lawsuit timely.
The statute of limitations does not begin to run from the 2006 payment because that payment was only for skylight replacement and did not constitute full settlement of all Hurricane Wilma claims. The breach occurred when United denied the roof replacement claim in August 2010, making the November 2011 lawsuit timely under the five-year statute of limitations.
[1] A statute of limitations for breach of an insurance contract does not begin to run until the insurer denies the claim.
[2] Partial payments made by an insurer do not necessarily trigger the statute of limitations if they do not constitute a full and final settlement of all claims.
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“the checks issued by United in 2006 merely evidence performance under the insurance policy and United's alleged breach did not occur until United denied the claim for roof replacement in 2010”
Establishes the key holding that breach occurs at denial of the claim, not at partial payment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 2005, the Lucianos claimed hurricane damage under their homeowner's policy with United. United paid for minor damage in February 2006 and …
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 Date Of Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order granting final summary judgment in favor of Appel-lee/Defendant, United Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“United”), on statute of limitations grounds. We reverse.
In November of 2005, Appellants/Plaintiffs, Juan and Vickie Luciano (the “Homeowners”), submitted a claim to United under their homeowner’s policy for damage sustained as a result of Hurricane Wilma. United hired an adjuster to inspect the property and, in February of 2006, issued payments to the Homeowners for “minor tile damage” on the roof, their fence, their skylight and the children’s wooden playground.
The Homeowners then requested additional payment for replacement of the skylight dome and fence. United sent the same adjuster to inspect the property again. As a result of the inspection, United agreed that the skylight should be replaced but found that the fence could be easily repaired. Approximately one week later, United sent a letter advising the Homeowners that it was issuing a “Net Settlement” of “$365.04 only for skylight replacement” which was followed by a check issued on July 6, 2006 in that amount.
In or about March of 2010, the Homeowners, while having a satellite dish installed, noticed that their roof was “drooping.” A roofing company inspected the roof and advised them that the drooping was from water damage and causing, among other things, “bubbling” of the front door frame, and discoloration near the air vents, and, further advised, that the roof needed to be replaced. The Homeowners filed a supplemental claim with United on April 16, 2010. In response, United sent a field adjuster and an engineering company to inspect the roof and interior. By way of a letter dated August 25, 2010, United denied this claim on the basis that its inspection revealed no windstorm damage, that it believed the loose roof tiles observed had been intentionally moved by hand, and that it believed that the “only significant damage” observed to the roof was most likely caused by the installer of the satellite dish.
In November of 2011, the Homeowners sued United for breach of contract. In turn, United raised the statute of limitations as a defense. On summary judgment, the circuit court agreed with United that the July 2006 payment was the event from which the statute of limitations began to run. On that basis the court entered final summary judgment in favor of United *1110finding that the Homeowners’ lawsuit was time-barred pursuant to the five-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions under section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2010).1
We disagree. There is no evidence of United’s denial of the Homeowners’ claim for interior damage and roof replacement until August of 2010.2 The letter issued in connection with the July 2006 check indicated it was a net settlement only for skylight replacement, and none of the checks and no other correspondence indicated payment in full for, or a complete settlement of, all Hurricane Wilma claims. None were marked full and final payment and there was nothing indicating that no additional supplemental payments would be made. Therefore, the checks issued by United in 2006 merely evidence performance under the insurance policy and United’s alleged breach did not occur until United denied the claim for roof replacement in 2010. See Rizo v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 133 So.3d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
Given that this action was commenced in 2011, the Homeowners’ lawsuit was timely. The final summary judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 225 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…. No comparable policy endorsement is mentioned in Slayton. . Under the statute in effect in 2009, the required-payment was more demanding. See supra note 2. . In addition to Slayton, Tower Hill relies on Luciano v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 156 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) and Rizo v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 133 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). In both cases, the insureds brought breach of contract actions against their respective insurers for failure to pay supplemental claims. The circuit cou…
-
Lemon v. People's Tr. Ins. Co., 344 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…age on the check evince an intention to settle future, unknown supplemental claims, the motion for directed verdict on the accord and satisfaction defense should have been granted as a matter of law. See Luciano v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 156 So. 3d 1108, 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding, where insurer’s 2006 letter indicated check was net settlement only for skylight replacement, and no check or letter indicated payment in full for, or a complete settlement of, all Hurricane Wilma claims or ind…
-
Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wellington Place HOA, Inc., 373 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…ges” and submitted a higher estimate to the insurer as instructed. Then, both parties continued to investigate the “amount of loss” of the initial claim until the insured demanded appraisal in late 2021. See Luciano v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 156 So. 3d 1108, 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Our decision in People’s Trust Insurance Co. v. Tracey, 251 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), is instructive. There, the insureds reported damage to their home following a tornado. Id. at 932. The insurer accepted covera…
Authorities Cited
- Rizo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 133 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)