For example, in Buckley Towers<\/em>, the insurer did not deny the insured\u2019s claim and construed the claim as a request for RCV damages. 395 F. App\u2019x at 661- 62. The court held that the insured was bound by the insurance contract to comply with the RCV term to repair and replace the property, which the insured had not done. Id<\/em>. at 663-64. The court distinguished a situation where an insurer wrongfully denies a claim denial (as here), acknowledging that Florida law holds that an insurer cannot rely on noncompliance with policy terms after a claim is denied. Id<\/em>. at 664 n.1<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Florida case law makes a clear distinction in the interpretation of these post-loss obligations based on whether an insurer denies coverage or accepts coverage and pays the Actual Cash Value of the loss. This is a win for policyholders whose claims are wrongfully denied. However, for policyholders that have their claims wrongfully underpaid to seek RCV benefits, they must either front the costs of repair or get a loan while fighting with their insurer. This, unfortunately, places an undue financial strain on policyholders fighting lowballed claims.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n