RHULIEN MILHOMME AND MARIE MILHOMME, APPELLANTS,
v.
TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 Milhommes sued their homeowner's insurer, Tower Hill, after it paid less than their independent adjuster's estimate for water damage. The court reversed summary judgment, holding that the insurer's initial payment does not preclude liability for the difference between its estimate and the policyholder's detailed loss estimate, distinguishing prior precedent that would have favored the insurer.
The insurer does not satisfy its policy obligations merely by paying according to its own adjuster's valuation and allowing supplemental claims. The Milhommes' claim, based on their independent adjuster's detailed estimate, addressed the original casualty event and amounts necessary to repair the direct physical loss, not supplemental damages discovered during reconstruction, and therefore summary judgment was improper.
[1] An insurer's offer to consider supplemental claims for damages discovered during reconstruction does not preclude a breach of contract claim when the insurer disputes the…
[2] A disagreement between an insurer's adjuster and an independent adjuster regarding the actual cash value and scope of repairs constitutes a dispute over the original casu…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Tower Hill declined to readjust or pay any further part of the Milhommes' estimate, and the Milhommes then sued Tower Hill in the circuit court for breach of the insurance policy.”
Establishes the factual basis for the breach of contract claim and the central dispute over payment amounts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Milhommes filed a homeowner's insurance claim with Tower Hill for water damage to their home. Tower Hill's claims investigator did not dispute cov…
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 Replacement Value cases and more on FLexlaw
Following water damage to their home, Mr. and Mrs. Milhomme filed a claim under their homeowners’ insurance policy issued by Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company (“Tower Hill”). A Tower Hill claims service investigated the claim, did not dispute coverage for the date or type of loss, computed actual cash value and replacement value for the damage, and issued a cheek to Mr. and Mrs. Milhomme for the higher of the two values, less the deductible. Tower Hill’s transmittal letter stated that it would consider “supplemental claims for any damages discovered in the covered reconstruction and repair of the above mentioned property.”
The gross amount of the loss (before subtracting the deductible) computed by Tower Hill, however, was about $20,000 less than the detailed, line-item estimate of restoration and repair costs by the Mil-hommes’ licensed, independent adjuster. The independent adjuster’s line-item calculations plainly disclosed a disagreement regarding the actual cash value (and appropriate scope of work) regarding the claim.
Tower Hill declined to readjust -or pay any further part of the Milhommes’ estimate, and the Milhommes then sued Tower Hill in the circuit court for breach of the insurance policy. Tower Hill moved for summary judgment, relying principally on Slayton v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 103 So.3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Tower Hill interprets Slayton to mean that no breach occurs so long as the insurer pays the amount its own adjuster computes to be due on the claim and also allows for “supplemental” claim submission (limited to additional damages discovered during the course of the reconstruction and repair).
The Milhommes opposed the motion and filed the affidavit and supporting cost estimates of their independent adjuster, George Quintero. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment for Tower Hill. This appeal followed.
We reverse the order on summary judgment and the final judgment in favor of Tower Hill, and we remand for further proceedings. The Milhommes’ claim and the adjusted loss amount prepared by Mr. Quintero was not a “supplemental claim,” or one for “damages discovered in the covered reconstruction and repair” of the property. The Milhommes’ claim addressed the original casualty event and the amounts contended to be necessary to repair and restore the direct physical loss to the covered property.
We distinguish Slayton and decline to apply it here for the reasons we have explained in Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Co., 225 So.3d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), and Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Insurance Co., 224 So.3d 259, 2017 WL 2960690 (Fla. 3d DCA July 12, 2017).1
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Servando Vazquez and Silvia Vazquez v. S. Fid. Prop. & Cas., Inc., 230 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…No. 3D16-1861, 225 So. 3d 974, 2017 WL 3722502, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12424 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 30, 2017), Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Insurance Co., 224 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), and Milhomme v. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Co., No. 3D16-2089, 227 So. 3d 724, 725, 2017 WL 4158850 at *1, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 13322 at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 20, 2017). In doing so, we note the trial court did not have the benefit of these decisions when it entered the final judgment at issue. Based on the 2011 amendments…
-
Chavez v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…to sue for an alleged inadequate payment for a loss. See Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 224 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Siegal v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 225 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Milhomme v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 227 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Vasquez v. S. Fid. Prop. & Cas., Inc., 230 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). It is clear that in our post-Slayton jurisprudence, we declined to follow or eschewed Slayton’s rationale. See, e.g., Vazquez, 230 So. 3d at 1243 (noti…
-
Dorra v. Rockhill Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2019)…“The district court ruling in this case turned on the interpretation of an insurance contract. Since the court was sitting in diversity, it applied the law of the forum state, Florida.”). repair. See, e.g., Milhomme v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 227 So. 3d 724, 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (defining “supplemental claim” as “damages discovered in the covered reconstruction and repair;” finding insured’s request for additional damages was not a supplemental claim because it referred to the original claim and caus…
Authorities Cited
- Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 225 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Latonya Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 224 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Therese Slayton v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)