An insured should be mindful that the same term in one homeowners insurance policy can have a different interpretation in another homeowner\u2019s insurance policy. Goldberg v. Universal Property<\/em> is a prime example of such a case.^{1<\/sup><\/p>\n}

In Goldberg<\/em>, after an insured sustained hurricane damage to his condominium unit, he filed a homeowners insurance claim asserting interior damage, which included damage to his personal property. The carrier then inspected his home but only issued coverage for the insured\u2019s dwelling (Coverage A) and denied that any of his personal property was covered under the policy (Coverage C).<\/p>\n

In response, the insured alleged that he had a proposal showing damages to his dwelling exceeded the carrier\u2019s estimate. Here, the relevant policy provision stated:<\/p>\n

You must give notice of a claim, a supplemental claim, or reopened claim for loss or damage caused by the peril of windstorm or hurricane, with us in accordance with the terms of this policy and within three years after the hurricane first made landfall or the windstorm caused the covered damage. For purposes of this Section, the term \u201csupplemental claim\u201d or \u201creopened claim\u201d means any additional claim for recovery from us for losses from the same hurricane or windstorm which we have previously adjusted pursuant to the initial claim.\u2026<\/strong><\/em>^{2<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n}

Despite the carrier asking him to provide more information under this policy language, the insured never provided a competing proposal showing additional damages to his dwelling and never provided an inventory list describing his damaged personal property.<\/p>\n

The insured then obtained legal counsel who requested various categories of documents from the carrier. His counsel also did not submit any competing estimate showing damage to the insured\u2019s dwelling or to his personal property. When the carrier failed to respond to the insured\u2019s request for documents, the insured filed a one-count Complaint alleging that the carrier breached its contract by failing to pay for all benefits due and owing under the policy. During litigation, the carrier moved for summary judgment alleging that the insured failed to submit an estimate or a supplemental claim before filing suit. After review of the parties\u2019 arguments, the trial court granted the carrier\u2019s motion for summary judgment.<\/p>\n

An appeal before the Fourth District Court of Appeal followed. One issue before the appellate court was whether the insured was required to submit a supplemental claim before he filed suit for the additional payment for the loss to the dwelling under Coverage A. In analyzing the positions of both parties, the appellate court noted the varying interpretations of the term \u201csupplemental claim\u201d that existed among different homeowners insurance policies but found the \u201cno action\u201d clause at issue in this case required that the insured file a supplemental claim for damages to the dwelling before filing suit. The court\u2019s opinion stated:<\/p>\n

The policy, in this case, states that one of the insured\u2019s duties after loss is to notify Universal of a \u201csupplemental claim\u201d caused by the peril of windstorm or hurricane within three years of the storm making landfall. The policy defines a \u201csupplemental claim\u201d for the purpose of this section as \u201cany additional claim for recovery from us for losses from the same hurricane or windstorm which we have previously adjusted pursuant to the initial claim.\u201d^{3<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n}

Regarding the insured\u2019s requirement to submit a supplemental claim for his personal property damage, the appellate court reached a different result. The court found that because the carrier failed to pay any amount for the insured\u2019s personal property loss, those actions constituted a denial of coverage and a waiver of its right to insist the insured\u2019s compliance with policy requirements.<\/p>\n

In all, the court\u2019s holdings demonstrate the need for insureds to be mindful of the relevant language in their policy, and the importance of not assuming that every policy term will be interpreted the same way in all circumstances.
\n_________________________________________
\n^{1<\/sup> Goldberg v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.<\/em>, 302 So. 3d 919, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)<\/a>.
\n2<\/sup> Goldberg<\/em>, 302 So. 3d at 920-21(emphasis added).
\n3<\/sup> Goldberg<\/em>, 302 So. 3d at 923.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"}

An insured should be mindful that the same term in one homeowners insurance policy can have a different interpretation in another homeowner\u2019s insurance policy. Goldberg v. Universal Property is a prime example of such a case.1<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":28367,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[4,184,204],"class_list":["post-28366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-insurance","tag-policy-language","tag-postloss-duties"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n