AMERICAN COASTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
LA RIVE GAUCHE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
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.
This per curiam affirmance addresses multiple interrelated issues in an insurance dispute, including the entitlement to prejudgment interest on liquidated damages, the standards for determining when damages are liquidated, the requirement of knowing or intentional fraudulent conduct to void a policy under concealment or fraud provisions, and the distinction between mere overvaluation and actionable fraud.
The court affirmed the lower court decision, holding that when a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff's out-of-pocket pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of loss. The court further held that to trigger application of a concealment or fraud policy provision to void the policy, there must be proof of knowing or intentional fraudulent conduct, and mere overvaluation does not constitute such fraud absent additional misrepresentation.
[1] Damages are liquidated when the proper amount to be awarded can be determined with exactness from the cause of action as pleaded, from a pleaded agreement between parties…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not set forth specific facts, as it is a per curiam affirmance citing multiple precedential authorities. The case involves an insuran…
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 Statutory Rate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 215 (Fla. 1985) (“[W]hen a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff's out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss.”);
Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (“Damages are liquidated when the proper amount to be awarded can be determined with exactness from the cause of action as pleaded, i.e., from a pleaded agreement between the parties, by an arithmetical calculation or by application of definite rules of law.”); Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Trif, 322 So. 3d 663, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[W]e hold that, for post-loss conduct, the policy requires proof of knowing or intentional fraudulent conduct by the insureds to trigger the application of the ‘Concealment or Fraud’ provision to void the policy.”); Citizens Prop. Ins. Co. v. Zamanillo, 388 So. 3d 912, 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (argument of counsel is not evidence); Trif, 322 So. 3d at 673 (“[C]ontractors or adjusters may significantly differ in their estimates, and [the court] cannot presume that one estimate, merely because it is excessively higher, is rife with fraud.” . . . “Mere overvaluation is not, in the absence of fraud, such a misrepresentation as will avoid the policy.” (internal citations omitted); RV-7 Prop., Inc. v. Stefani De La O, Inc., 187 So. 3d 915, 916-17 (“Amendments to pleadings ought to be allowed freely unless there is a clear danger of prejudice, abuse, or futility.” (Emphasis supplied).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Coastal Ins. Co. v. La Rive Gauche Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 388 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…awarded can be determined with exactness from the cause of action as pleaded, i.e., from a pleaded agreement between the parties, by an arithmetical calculation or by application of definite rules of law.”); Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Trif, 322 So. 3d 663, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[W]e hold that, for post-loss conduct, the policy requires proof of knowing or intentional fraudulent conduct by the insureds to trigger the application of the ‘Concealment or Fraud’ provision to void the policy.”); Cit…1 / 2
-
Reyes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Fla., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Flagship Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Gray Distrib. Sys., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- RV-7 Prop., Inc. v. Stefani DE LA O, Inc., 187 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Am. Coastal Ins. Co. v. La Rive Gauche Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 388 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)