To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
For years, the plaintiff’s bar has taken the position that a replacement cost policy requires an insurance carrier’s initial coverage payment to include money for undamaged property – otherwise known as “matching.” The Third District Court of Appeal has rejected this argument.
See Vazquez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, 304 So. 3d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
citing favorably to Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. v. Maspons, 211 So. 3d 1067, 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
In
Vazquez, the Third District concluded that an insurance carrier’s liability under a homeowner’s property insurance policy is constrained by the phrase “direct physical loss,” which limits payments for the repair of actual damages, which does not include matching. The court held: “Based on the record before us, we find the . . . judge adhered to the plain language of the policy and Florida law in granting Citizen’s motion in li