Constructive Total Loss

60 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York
  431 F.2d 409· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-14 ·cited 4187×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the Shipyard was not liable for conversion or negligence causing the loss of the vessel.
• Zennon Mierzwa v. Fla. Windstorm Underwriting Ass'n
  877 So. 2d 774· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-06-23 ·cited 35×
  A homeowner with separate wind and flood insurance policies sought full recovery under Florida's Valued Policy Law (VPL) after Hurricane Irene caused combined wind and flood damage resulting in a total loss. The court held that the wind insurer must pay the full face amount of it
• The Tex. Co. v. R. O'Brien & Co., Inc.
  242 F.2d 526· 1st Cir.· 1957-03-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the assessor's valuation of the vessel was clearly erroneous because it did not adequately consider comparable sales and was not supported by sufficient evidence.
• Fishing Fleet, Inc. v. Trident Ins. Co.
  598 F.2d 925· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the insured's loss was caused by barratry of the master, not by government seizure, and that the insured's actions did not void the policy.
• NAT G. Harrison Overseas Corp. v. Am. TUG Titan
  516 F.2d 89· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court erred in calculating lost earnings damages by failing to deduct expenses saved by the non-performance of the contract, and remanded for recalculation. It also reallocated portions of the demurrage award and salvage damages.
• Edinburgh Assurance Co. v. R. L. Burns Corp. & Am. Pac. Int'l, Inc.
  669 F.2d 1259· 9th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the district court's determination that the Gatto was an actual total loss under the British Marine Insurance Act of 1906.
• Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mallett
  7 So. 3d 552· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-02-27 ·cited 24×
  Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appeals a summary judgment awarding homeowners the full policy limits for hurricane damage, arguing the Valued Policy Law does not require payment for total losses partially caused by excluded perils. The court reverses the main judgment ba
• O'Brien Bros., Inc. v. THE Helen B. Moran
  160 F.2d 502· 2d Cir.· 1947-03-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the libellant failed to prove the amount of damages awarded because the cost of repairs exceeded the value of the damaged vessel, and the burden was on the libellant to prove actual damages.
• Cummins Sales & Serv., Inc. v. London & Overseas Ins. Co. & Provincial Ins. Co.
  476 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-21 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the carrier was estopped from impeaching a clean bill of lading and was liable for cargo damage, but the trial court erred in calculating damages.
• Ryan Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. James Marine Servs., Inc.
  792 F.2d 489· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-18 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of damages, including loss of use and prejudgment interest, finding no clear error in the factual determinations and applying established maritime law principles.
• The Citizens Ins. Co. v. Barnes
  98 Fla. 933· Fla.· 1929-11-20 ·cited 16×
  Citizens Insurance Company challenges a directed verdict finding constructive total loss of an insured building in Milton, Florida. The court held that a local ordinance prohibiting repairs to frame buildings damaged over 50% of replacement cost became an integral part of the ins
• Asphalt Int'l, Inc. v. Enter. Shipping Corp., S.A.
  667 F.2d 261· 2d Cir.· 1981-12-10 ·cited 14×
  A shipowner is excused from the duty to repair a chartered vessel if the cost of repairs exceeds the vessel's pre-collision fair market value, rendering performance commercially impracticable, even if insurance proceeds exceed the vessel's value.
• Rock Transp. Props. Corp. v. The Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
  433 F.2d 152· 2d Cir.· 1970-10-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the insured did not forfeit recovery by failing to give timely notice or by failing to tender abandonment, and that the insurer waived the notice requirement by disclaiming liability on the merits.
• S. Felicione & Sons Fish Co., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York
  430 F.2d 136· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-23 ·cited 14×
• Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Hamilton
  43 So. 3d 746· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-07-07 ·cited 13×
  Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed a jury verdict awarding the Hamiltons full policy limits for wind damage to their mobile home destroyed by Hurricane Ivan, challenging the exclusion of flood insurance evidence, admission of a county substantial damage determinatio
• Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc. v. Sebo
  141 So. 3d 195· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-09-18 ·cited 12×
  American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) appeals a jury verdict awarding John Sebo over $8 million in homeowners insurance coverage for damages caused by multiple perils (defective construction, rain, and hurricane). The court reverses and remands for a new trial, rejecting the con
• Allen N. Spooner & SON, Inc. v. The Conn. Fire Ins. Co.
  314 F.2d 753· 2d Cir.· 1963-03-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that swells from a passing vessel constituted a 'peril of the sea' under the 'Perils' clause, and that the negligence of the charterer acting as master was covered by the 'Inchmaree' clause, despite the exclusion for 'want of due diligence by the owners'.
• United States v. E. S. S. Lines, Inc.
  171 F.2d 589· 1st Cir.· 1948-12-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that evidence of reproduction cost less depreciation is admissible to determine fair market value when no free market exists, and that statutory language limits interest to the date suit is filed.
• Greer v. Owners Ins.
  2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40790· N.D. Fla.· 2006-06-06 ·cited 11×
  The court held that Florida's Valued Policy Law does not apply to federal flood insurance policies and that the insured failed to meet the strict proof of loss requirement for their flood insurance claim.
• Jeffcott v. Ætna Ins. Co.
  129 F.2d 582· 2d Cir.· 1942-07-15 ·cited 11×
  Admiralty jurisdiction extends to marine insurance policies even with a lay-up warranty, and the "50% rule" for constructive total loss applies regardless of the vessel's location upon damage.
• Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mathis
  33 So. 3d 94· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-04-20 ·cited 10×
  Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company appealed a jury verdict awarding homeowners Willis and Katherine Mathis the full policy limits of their homeowners insurance policy after Hurricane Ivan caused both wind and flood damage to their home. The appellate court affirmed, h
• Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ueberschaer
  956 So. 2d 483· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-03-28 ·cited 10×
  Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appeals a summary judgment awarding policy limits to homeowner Thomas Ueberschaer for total loss under Florida's Valued Policy Law (VPL), despite the policy excluding flood damage. The court affirms the VPL applies to the dwelling coverage
• Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Scott
  197 F.2d 795· 2d Cir.· 1952-05-12 ·cited 10×
  The policy ceased to cover the ship when its military requisition extended far beyond the original voyage, and the ship's military use barred claims under the Suits in Admiralty Act.
• Reliance Ins. Co. v. Harris
  503 So. 2d 1321· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-03-05 ·cited 8×
  Reliance Insurance appeals a summary judgment awarding Harris the full insured value of a building destroyed by fire, determined by appraisal as required by the insurance policy. The court affirms the summary judgment but reverses the attorney's fees award that improperly applied
• Calmar S. S. Corp. v. Scott
  209 F.2d 852· 2d Cir.· 1954-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the insured could claim a constructive total loss even if the expense of repair did not exceed the insured value, due to the impossibility of calculating such costs.
• Urico v. Parnell OIL Co.
  708 F.2d 852· 1st Cir.· 1983-06-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that evidence of settlement negotiations was admissible to explain the plaintiffs' failure to mitigate damages, and that loss of use damages could extend beyond the repair period due to the insurer's unreasonable conduct.
• Inez H. Lenfest & Marine Midland Grace Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. Coldwell
  525 F.2d 717· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that subsequent, independent casualties cannot be cumulated for constructive total loss purposes, but unrepaired damage from earlier incidents can be carried forward. The case is remanded for further findings on allowable repair costs and the nature of the settleme
• Latham B. Hewlett v. Barge Bertie
  418 F.2d 654· 4th Cir.· 1969-11-28 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a vessel's prior status as a constructive total loss does not preclude recovery for subsequent damage, and the cost of repairs is the proper measure of damages when economically feasible.
• Constructores Tecnicos v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.
  945 F.2d 841· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a clean bill of lading creates a presumption of below-deck stowage, and on-deck stowage without shipper consent is an unreasonable deviation under COGSA, stripping the carrier of liability limitations. The court also held that a non-settling defendant is entit
• State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Ondis
  962 So. 2d 923· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-05-14 ·cited 4×
  State Farm challenged a summary judgment awarding homeowners the full policy limit for their hurricane-damaged home under Florida's Valued Policy Law. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the undisputed photographic evidence and expert testimony established t
• E.I. DuPONT de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Robin Hood Shifting & Fleeting Serv., Inc.
  899 F.2d 377· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's valuation of the barge, calculation of loss of use damages, and limitation of prejudgment interest were not clearly erroneous, affirming the judgment as modified.
• Lloyd's U.S. Corp. v. Smallwood
  719 F. Supp. 1540· M.D. Fla.· 1989-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the vessel capsized due to the negligence of the captain and crew, not a lack of seaworthiness or overloading, and that the insurance policy covered the loss.
• Albany Ins. Co. v. Bengal Marine, Inc.
  857 F.2d 250· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in determining the cause of the barge's sinking and in its interpretation of the insurance policy, but erred in awarding damages for loss of use of a replacement barge.
• E. Coast Tender Serv., Inc. v. Robert T. Winzinger, Inc.
  759 F.2d 280· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that wreck removal costs are not covered under the P&I policy when the legal compulsion to remove arises too long after the policy's expiration, even if the initial loss occurred during the policy term.
• Md. Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. v. The United States
  409 F.2d 1363· Ct. Cl.· 1969-04-11 ·cited 4×
  Insurance proceeds for loss of earnings are taxable as ordinary income, and property damage insurance proceeds received in a later year are not accruable in the tax year prior to a fixed and unconditional right to receive them.
• Jyurovat v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  84 So. 3d 1238· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-04-13 ·cited 3×
  George Jyurovat appeals a summary judgment dismissing his insurance claim against Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The trial court ruled that Jyurovat materially breached the insurance policy by terminating the appraisal umpire and filing suit before completing
• U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Aliaga
  S.D. Fla.· 2011-02-28 ·cited 2×
• Magnum Marine Corp. v. Great Am. Ins.
  640 F. Supp. 1142· S.D. Fla.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the damaged boat was a constructive total loss under the insurance policy because it could not be restored to its original condition as a new vessel, entitling the plaintiff to recover the vessel's value less salvage and the deductible.
• Oscar L. Aronsen, Inc. v. Compton
  495 F.2d 674· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-09 ·cited 2×
  A settlement agreement explicitly resolving claims for unrepaired damage constitutes a settlement of a partial loss, not a constructive total loss, for the purposes of other insurance policies.
• Indem. Marine Assur. Co. v. Cadiente
  188 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1951-04-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurer's actions during salvage operations did not constitute an acceptance of the insured's abandonment, as the vessel was ultimately recovered and repaired.
• Tillery v. Hull & Co., Inc.
  717 F. Supp. 1481· M.D. Fla.· 1988-04-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the seizure and detention of the vessel by Jamaican authorities, rather than the captain's barratry, was the proximate cause of the vessel's damage, and thus the loss was excluded by the Free of Capture and Seizure provision of the policy.
• Magnum Marine Corp., N.V. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.
  835 F.2d 265· 11th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the insured failed to prove a constructive total loss because they did not demonstrate that the repaired vessel could not be sold for at least its pre-loss value, and thus the case must be remanded for determination of actual damages.
• Polar Vortex, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-09-27
  Polar Vortex, LLC sought to recover $950,000 from its marine insurance provider for hurricane damage to its catamaran under a policy containing a one-year limitations period, but the court granted judgment to the insurer because the claim was time-barred. The court held that the
• Great Lakes Reinsurance (U.K.) PLC v. Branam
  126 So. 3d 297· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-03-06
  Great Lakes Reinsurance appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for directed verdict on Joe Harry Branam Sr.'s breach of contract claim regarding an insured fishing vessel damaged during a 2007 hijacking. The court reversed, holding that Branam lacked authority to file ins
• Old Park Invs., Inc. v. the Vessel "Leda"
  469 F. Supp. 2d 1201· S.D. Fla.· 2006-12-14
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove proximate causation for the alleged negligence and that subsequent claims were moot due to the vessel being declared a constructive total loss prior to further damage.
• Mentor Ins. Co. (U.K.) Ltd. & Mentor Ins. Ltd. v. Norges Brannkasse
  996 F.2d 506· 2d Cir.· 1993-05-24
  The court affirmed the district court's adoption of the special master's report regarding reinsurance coverage and liability, but reversed and remanded on the issue of joint and several liability and attorneys' fees.
• United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Allied Towing Corp.
  966 F.2d 820· 4th Cir.· 1992-05-21
  The court held that the district court's apportionment of liability was not clearly erroneous, but that its damages award lacked sufficient explanation and its denial of prejudgment interest was an abuse of discretion.
• Tillery v. Hull & Co., Inc.
  876 F.2d 1517· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-12
  The court held that the proximate cause of the vessel's damage was the seizure by authorities, an excluded risk, not the barratry of the captain, which was a covered risk.
• Algernon Blair Grp., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  821 F.2d 597· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-15
  The court held that a municipal demolition order can establish a constructive total loss under a valued policy law, but reversed the district court's finding on the sufficiency of the proof of loss, recalculating prejudgment interest.
• Regency Baptist Temple v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  352 So. 2d 1242· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-12-08
  Regency Baptist Temple appealed a directed verdict judgment awarding it only the replacement cost of the collapsed roof portion rather than the cost to replace the entire roof as required by municipal ordinance. The court affirmed, holding that the insurance policy's exclusion fo