Florida Second District Court of Appeal Reverses Directed Verdict on ACV in Favor of Insurer, Remands for New Trial

By Zachary D. Sonenblum

In Weston v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 7998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal reversed a directed verdict entered in favor of the Insurer and remanded the case for a new trial.

After a windstorm, Universal accepted coverage for a limited number of shingles and some interior repairs, and issued payment for those covered repairs based upon its estimate, less the $1,000 deductible. The Insureds disagreed with Universal’s coverage determination and submitted estimates from two (2) different roofers seeking a complete roof replacement. In response to those estimates, Universal informed the Insureds that, based upon its investigation, a roof replacement was not required, and its payment was correct. Disagreeing with Universal’s position, the Insureds filed suit.

During trial, the Insureds presented testimony from an engineer and a contractor. The engineer testified that the roof required replacement because more than 25% of the roof was damaged, and the contractor presented an estimate with both replacement cost values (RCV) and actual cash values (ACV).

After each party rested, Universal sought and the Court granted directed verdicts premised upon three (3) grounds as follows:

1. The Insureds’ expert’s estimate was not an actual cash value estimate due to the inclusion of matching costs and other factors that went beyond the property directly and physically damaged by the storm.


2. Since Universal paid actual cash value less the applicable deductible, no further payment was required because no work was performed and no expenses were incurred.


3. The only ACV estimate received by Universal prior to the suit being filed was its own field adjuster’s estimate, and therefore, making payment based upon that estimate was not a breach of the insurance policy.

The 2nd DCA found all three grounds in error as follows:

1. The first directed verdict was error because 1) the Insureds’ engineer testified that the Florida Building Code required replacement because there was damage to more than 25% of the Roof, and 2) the Insureds testified that there was additional damage to the loft area and guest bedroom—areas that were not included in Universal’s estimate.
   

   a. The 2nd DCA concluded that “the parties’ disputes regarding damage to the bedroom, the percentage of the roof that was damaged, and the cost to repair the damages to the home were factual disputes that should have been submitted to the jury, and the trial court erred in entering a directed verdict in favor of Universal.”

2. The second directed verdict was error for two reasons:

   a. Because Universal rejected a claim that the roof damage exceeded the specifically identified damaged shingles and was unwilling to pay the ACV of the roof replacement and interior damage, “Universal was arguably in breach of the policy by rejecting the Westons’ claim for roof replacement and related damages and, as a result, failing to pay the actual cash value of the loss.”
   
   b. Because “Universal’s allegedly improper denial of coverage for the roof replacement and repairs to the interior of the home necessitated the Westons’ lawsuit, which ‘should include an adjudication of damages that includes all of what the insurer would have been obligated to pay under the contract should the insureds prevail in their claim that the insurer breached the contract by denying coverage.’”

3. The third directed verdict was error because “[t]he trial court’s reliance on Goldberg was erroneous because the insured in that case never provided the insurer with any estimate before filing suit. Unlike the insured in Goldberg, Ms. Martinez testified that Universal received estimates for roof repairs from the Westons before they filed suit. Universal simply disagreed with the estimates because they were for roof replacement and related repairs, which Universal had determined were unnecessary. Thus, the Westons satisfied their obligations under the policy before filing suit.”

Accordingly, the 2nd DCA reversed the final judgment entered in favor of Universal and remanded the case for a new trial.