Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves the assignment of a homeowners' insurance policy claim from the original policyholder to a third party after the insured property suffered damage from Hurricane Andrew. The original policyholder received initial payment for structural damage but did not claim additional living expenses (ALE). The assignee sought to reopen the claim, leading to disputes over the validity of the assignment without the insurer's consent and the inclusion of ALE in damage appraisals. Under Florida law, insurance claims for losses can be assigned without insurer consent after a loss. The trial court ruled in favor of the assignee, upholding an initial appraisal that included ALE. However, the appellate court found that the assignee, not being a resident, could not claim ALE benefits as these are intended for the insured's loss of use. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding ALE while affirming the property damage award, emphasizing that the policy's ALE coverage only applies when the dwelling is uninhabitable for the named insured.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appraisal and Arbitration Authoritysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Highlands Insurance contested the appraisers' inclusion of ALE in their award, arguing that the appraisers exceeded their authority, although the trial court initially confirmed the award.
Reasoning: The initial appraisal awarded significant damages, including additional living expenses, which Highlands contested, arguing the appraisers exceeded their authority.
Assignment of Insurance Claims under Florida Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed the validity of an assignment of insurance claims, determining that Florida law allows the assignment of claims after a loss, even without the insurer's consent.
Reasoning: According to Florida law, an insurance policy provision that restricts assignment without the insurer's consent does not prevent the assignment of claims for insurance money due after a loss.
Entitlement to Additional Living Expenses (ALE)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Kravecas, not being a resident and having no personal loss of use, could not claim ALE benefits under the policy, which are intended for the insured's relief when the dwelling becomes uninhabitable.
Reasoning: Consequently, Kravecas cannot assert a claim for loss of potential use as he was not a resident of the premises and is considered a third-party buyer.
Reversal of Trial Court Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the ALE award to Kravecas, as the assignment did not include valid claims for loss of use.
Reasoning: The trial court's judgment in favor of Kravecas is reversed, and the ALE award is struck, while the property damage award remains unchallenged.
Validity of Assignment without Insurer's Consentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Despite the absence of written consent, the assignment of the insurance policy and proceeds from Sax to Kravecas was deemed valid for claims related to losses already incurred.
Reasoning: The policy expressly prohibited assignments without written consent, which Highlands did not provide.