Ford v. American Security Insurance Company, No. 1:2019cv20223 - Document 15 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 10 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 12/4/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ford v. American Security Insurance Company Doc. 15 IJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHXRN DISTRICT OF IY ORIDA M IAM IDIVISION CA SE N O .1:19-cv-20223-JLK M NIS FOllD , Plaintiff, AMERJCAN sEctlm 'ry l' NsultANcE COM PANY,aforeign borporation, Defendant. / . ORDER GM NTING DEFENDXNT'SM OTION FOR SUM M ARY JUDGM ENT . . . . . . THIS'CAVSE isbeforetheCourtoàDefendantAmeritan Sçcurityilnsurp crCompny's MotionyorSllmmaryJudgment(DE 10)andMotiontoTakeJudicialNoyice(DE 8)?bothfiled Uctober7,2019.Plaintifffailed to respond totheM otions,and thetim eto do so hasexpired. 1. BA C K G R O U N D Thisisabreach ofcontractcase arising from Plaintlffsclaim forinsurance proceedsfor : . . . property dam age çaused by Hurricanélrma. Thefollowing factsareundisputed.l Defendant AmericanSecuritylnsuranceCompany(idAmericanSecurity'')issued acertificateofinstlrance èffectiveFebruary 2,2017through February 2,2018,providing coverage forPlaintiff'sproperty ' ( locatedat160NW 145th Street,Minmi,Florida33168.SeeDef.'sStatementofM aterialFacts! 1,DE 9.Onjeptember20,2017,Plaintiffsubmitledaclaifnupderthepolicyforwindstorm ' damagecausedbyHùnicanelrma.jd !3. jBe'causePlaintifffailedto submitany opposing statem çntoffactscontroverting thefactsset forthinDefendant'sStatementofM aterialFacts(DE 9),thosefactsaredeemedadmittedfor puposesofsummaryjudgment.SeeS.D.Fla.L.R.56.1. Dockets.Justia.com OpN ovember3,2017,Am erican Securitypartially accepted coverageand issued a ' paymentin the amountof$31,721.42 forPlaintiffsclaim .Id !!5-6.AmericanSeculjjy . .. ' .' . . '' i ' . '. ' '' ' deniedéoverage,forthepurported dam ageto Plainti?f'sgapjeblcàusvfhednmagewas . Esunmpaireddnmagefrohlapriorclaim.''Id !7.Specifically,plaiptiffhad jubrpitted aclaim . , ' forthesam edam agein 2016followingatolmado, butC L Gdidnot'repairthçdamagel)tohisgarage . . withtheinslzranceproceeds(fmm t ,hepriorclaimjandwasagainclqimingthçsnmedamages''in hisHurricaheIrmacléim.BusbyAf).!!10-16,DE 9-1.zAfterAmericr Securitymadeits . coveragedetermination,Plpintiffsubm itted an invoice showingthatthefoofshadbeen repairçd for$14,000.SeeDE 9. 15 8,10;BusbyAff.!17,Ex.E. . . . ' . ' ' . . . N early a yearafterAmericap Security m adeitscoveragedeterm inqtion and ipsped thr . $31,721.42paymept,on October5,2018,Plaintiffdubm itted aStsw orn StatementiilPropf of J ' . . ' . . , ' , ' . Loss''claiming$118,853.42 indamage.SeeDE 9!9;BusàyAff.Ex.F,DE 9-7.kota 'bly, despitehavings) .u.àmi ' tted aninkoiceshowingthattherooféwererejlaced fQr$14,000,Plaintiff. now claim ed that$55,707.42 wasnecessary toreplaùethosesqmeroofsand soughtadditional moneyforthedarhagçtothegarage.BusbyAff.!!.19-21. ' . . Thepartiesthen submittedtheclaim toappraisal.SeeDE 9! 13.OiiFebruary28,2019, . Am erican Security'sappraiserinspected theproperty and discovered thattherùofshad already beenreplaced.SeeBiinegarAff.!!9-11,DE 9-10.Noneth ,éless,theclaim wassubmittedtoa neutrglumpire,who ultim ately isjped an appraisalaw ard for$62,501.85,including $36,799.78 ' s . fortheroofsand$4,299.07forthegarage.f#.!!16-19. 2Asnoted in Am erican SecurityjsM otion ' to TakeJudicialNotice, the priorgarage claim w as litigatedbetween thepartiesin $hestatecourtaction styledRanisFord v.American kR cpfr//..p InsuranceCompany,Cà'seNo.2016-029654-CA-01,whichwasdismissedwithprej' udiceaftey American Securitymadetherequiredpayments(totalipg$5,485.82)pursuanttoaccurt-ordered ' . appraisal. Seq DE 8-5 at45,60;DE 8-6. ' , 2 ' ' American Security'sappraiserattempted to contacttheumpireregardingtheseamotpts becquse,basedonhisvlsualinspectionoftheproperty andthçroofinginvoicePlaintiffhad . ' . iubmitted,the$36,799.78 award toieplacethe roofshad Cinljconnectibn w hatsoeverto.the . actualamountPlaintiffpaidtorellacetheE)rohfj.''Id.!19.However,theumpiredidnot respond./: !17.'Inadditioniotheumpirenotconsiderihgtheactuqlreplqcementcostforthe roofs,the aw ard w asp ade i&W ithoutconsideration ofany deduçtible orpriôrpaym ents,''which , weretodsbesubtractedfrom nypa'ymçrïtsdtt eandowing''unde rtheaward.Id !20.Thç award ' ' l . ' ) ' - ''' . . . w. .' . . . . . wasAlso'fsmadesubjectjo a11teyms,ébnditionsànd exclusions''under. thrlolicy.f#. ' .. . . ..' . '' ' .. . ' ' . ' - ' ' . .. . . OnDecerféer'3,2018,PlaintiffsledthisactionallegingthatAm/yican Seçu'ritybreathed t . thepolicybecausetheamourgspaidwere:;i. nadequatetoperform therel>irsneededtojjy.ajy dam agescaused by theItossmldtorestorePlaintiffsPtopertytoitspre-Losscondition. '' . Compl.!25,DE 1-5.AmericanSecgritynow movejforspmmaryjudgmentongroundsthitthe Stundispute' d materialfactsestablishthatAm eric' an Security did notbreach theàpplicable ' . . . , .. iùsurance contractapd'thatPlaintiffhasno dam agés.''M ot.Supm .Judgpwnt13jDE 10. . . ' . . , t . . , . . American.securityalsoarguesthatsummaryjudkmentisWrrantedbçcaujkPlaintiffCtméde .' - . -'. --' r ' ' .. . . ' . falsestatementsinan attempttorecovçrinsuranceproceedsthatj' reatly. exceededhisactual dLmages.'''1d.Incorinectionw'iihktàeMotionforSùmmaryJudgmentjAmerican Sectlrityalso . tdqueststhatiheCourttakejudiciqlnoticeofthejtatecourtrecordsfrom the2016lawsuit ' ihvôlvingthepriorgarageclairh.M ot.JudicialNotice,D/ 8. 11 I-EdAL STANDARD Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewhereidthemovantshowsthatthereisnègenuine / disPttieàstoanymateriàlfactandthemovantisentitledtojudgmentasamatterofl>w.''Fed. ' : . .. . u . R.Civ.P.56(a).h Gçgenuinedisputç''meansfetheevidenceissuchthatareasonablejurycould 3 rettlrn a' verdictforthenonmovingparty.''Anderson v.Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U .S.242,247- 48(1986).Inopposingsummaryjudgment,thenonmovingpartyS:mustsetforthspeçificfqcts showingthatthereisagenuineissuefortrial.''f#.at250. tslfaparty failsto properly supportor addressanotherparty'sassertionoffactinamotion forsummaryjudgment,thecogrtmay . . lconsiderthefactundisputedforpurposesofthemotion'orEgrantstlmmaryjudgmentifthe m otion and supportingm >terials includingthefactsconsidered undisputed shqw thatthe ' . . movantisentitledtoit.''' Urdanetav.WellsFargoBankN A.,734F.App'y701,704(11th Cir.' 1018)(quotingFed.R.Civ.P.56(e)(2),(3)). 111. D ISCU SSIO N U nderFlonda ( ' law , theelementsofabreachofcontractclaim m'e:(1)theexistenceofa contract;(2)amateriélbreachofthatcontract;and (3)dnmagesresultingfrom thebre>ch.Sqq Maorv..DollarF/lrf/f ' yAutomotiveGroup,Inc.,303F.Supp.3d 1320,1324. IS.D.Fla.2017).In . . ' -- -' ' ' ' '' ' . ' theinsuranceeontext,itiswellestablishedthatan appraisalawm'd isbinding on thepartiesand .' y may giveriseto abreach ofcontractclaim . Seegenerally TravelersJkJ'.Co.v.fuckett,279 So. 2d885,886(F1a.3dDCA 1973).However,courtshaverecognizedthatanappraisalawarddoes ltotestablish thenmountsowejunderthepolicywhere(ashere)theawàrd includeslanguage stating thatitw asm ade w ithoutconsideration ofthe deductible am ount,priorpaym ents,or policyexclusions.See,e.g.,SandsontheOcean Condo.Ass'n,Inc.v.QBE Ins.Corp.,No.05- 14362-CIV,2009WL790120,at*3(S.D.Fla.Mar.24,2009)(Marra,J.)(findingtùatdefendant wasCsentitledto challengecoverageastoportionjofthe appraisalaward''where award stated thatitwasm adettwithoutany èonsideration ofthedeductiblèam ountorpriorpaym entsissued to theinsuredoranyterims,conditions,provisionsorexclusions''oftheinsmancepplicyl;f.iberty . AlnericanIns.Co.v.Kennedy,890So.2d539,541-42(F1a.Dist.Ct.App.2005)(concluding 4 thatGsthesubmissionoftheclaim toAppraisaldoesnotforeclose(thedefendantqfrpm challenginganelementoflossasnotbeingcoveredbythepolicy''). Here,theappraisa1award wasm adeçswithoutconsideration ofany deductible orprior payments,''andwasalsoCtmadbsubjecttoa11terms,conditionsandexclusipns''tmderthepölicy. SeeBrinegarAff.!2j.Thus,AmericanSecurityarguesthat,becqusePlaintiffpaid$14?000.to replacethe damaged roofs,theaward mustbereduced underthelt ossSettlem ent''provisipn of . thepolicy,whichstatesthat$heinsuierwillpaynomorethanStltlhenecessaryamountéctually spenttorepairorreplacethedamajed (1property.''SeeMot.Sùmm,Judgment7-9.Ameriian Security also notesthatthepolicy cpntainsan exclusion baning covçrag: when the insured has t$m isrepresentedanymaterialfactorcircumstance,idStgqjngaged infraudulentconduct,''or Sdgmqadefalsestatementsrelayingtotheinsurance.''Id at11. 'Andhere,Amçrican Sçcurityhas subm itted evidence showi' ng thatPl4intiffm isrepresented thedam égeto the roofsby claim ipg $55,707k42 in hisProöfofLossdespitehaving already completed theroofrepairsfor$14,000. ' . Id àt12.Plaintiffhassubmitted no evidencecontradictingthesefacts.Finally,Am erican Securityarguesthattheamountawardedforthegarage($4,299.07)mustbedeductedbased on thepriorpàymentsAmericanSecuritymade($$,485.82)torepairthesamedamageatissuein ' . the state courtaction involving Plintiff'spriorgarage claim .1d. at9. :-10,n.4.g Afterreducing the awardpursuanttothesepolicy provisionsand priorpaym ents,the undisputed factsshow thatAmerican Security doesnotoweany additionalam ountsunderthe . ' 3In supportofthis argum ent, American Secl zrityrequeststhattheCourttakejudicialnoticeöf thecourtrecbrdsfled in thestatecourtaction showingthatAm erican Securitytendered the paymentforthegaragerepairsjursuanttothecourt-orderedappraisal,ahdthatPl>inti.ffcashçd theùhectonApril19,2017.SeeMot.JudicialNoticeExs.E &'F.The'Courttindsthatjudicial noticeisappropriateklnderFederalRuleofEvidence201(b)(2)an 'dthatPlaintiffhasfailed to ' ' . controvertany ofthe evidenceskbmitted by American Security on thisissuein any event. . 5 '' . , . . policy. Indeed?theundisputed factsshow thatthenm ountspaidby Am erican Secklrity exceeded )( ' thenmotmt Plaintiffwouldbeentitled to recove'runderthem odified appraisalaward.See/ ot. . Sum m .Judgm ent10-1l.Assuch,the Couh fîndsthatno gengineissuesofm ateriglfactexist . . ' .,,' l ' . ' ' . thatwolzld show Am ericpn Security bmached thepolicy örthatPlaintiffhassuffered any . . ' . '. . damages,:ndthusAmericanSecurityisentitledtojudgmçnt.asamatteroflaw. IV.CONCLUSIUN Accordipgly,itisORDEREb;ADJUDGED,ANb DXCRE:D tàatDefendant's MotionforSlzmlharys lvdgment(Dà 10)be,andthejnmeheribyis,GRANTXD;Defendant's .. . . J . . .' , . ' r. ( . . M otiontoTak:JudiciglNotice(Dt 8)isalsoGRANTEDkàndtheCouriwillenterfinal judgmentin aseparàtedocumentpur suanttoFed.R.Civ.P.58(a). T . . . DONE AND4 ORDERED in Cham bersattheJam esLawrence King FederalJustice ' . . . ' ' ' . .. éuildingalidUnitedStatesCourthouôe,M iami,Plorida,this4thdayofDecember,2019. * JA EjLAw . NcE I' NG IT/D STATES DISYRICT JUD CC: Allidunselof' record 6 :
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
