Milhomme v. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Co. , 227 So. 3d 724 ( 2017 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 20, 2017.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D16-2089
Lower Tribunal No. 14-27302
________________
Rhulien Milhomme and Marie Milhomme,
Appellants,
vs.
Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, John
Schlesinger, Judge.
Mintz Truppman and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for appellants.
Koch Parafinczuk Wolf Susen, Justin R. Parafinczuk and Andrew S. Ramos
(Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following water damage to their home, Mr. and Mrs. Milhomme filed a
claim under their homeowners’ insurance policy issued by Tower Hill Signature
Insurance Company (“Tower Hill”). A Tower Hill claims service investigated the
claim, did not dispute coverage for the date or type of loss, computed actual cash
value and replacement value for the damage, and issued a check to Mr. and Mrs.
Milhomme for the higher of the two values, less the deductible. Tower Hill’s
transmittal letter stated that it would consider “supplemental claims for any
damages discovered in the covered reconstruction and repair of the above
mentioned property.”
The gross amount of the loss (before subtracting the deductible) computed
by Tower Hill, however, was about $20,000 less than the detailed, line-item
estimate of restoration and repair costs by the Milhommes’ licensed, independent
adjuster. The independent adjuster’s line-item calculations plainly disclosed a
disagreement regarding the actual cash value (and appropriate scope of work)
regarding the claim.
Tower Hill declined to readjust or pay any further part of the Milhommes’
estimate, and the Milhommes then sued Tower Hill in the circuit court for breach
of the insurance policy. Tower Hill moved for summary judgment, relying
principally on Slayton v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 103 So. 3d
934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Tower Hill interprets Slayton to mean that no breach
2
occurs so long as the insurer pays the amount its own adjuster computes to be due
on the claim and also allows for “supplemental” claim submission (limited to
additional damages discovered during the course of the reconstruction and repair).
The Milhommes opposed the motion and filed the affidavit and supporting
cost estimates of their independent adjuster, George Quintero. The trial court
granted the motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment for Tower
Hill. This appeal followed.
We reverse the order on summary judgment and the final judgment in favor
of Tower Hill, and we remand for further proceedings. The Milhommes’ claim
and the adjusted loss amount prepared by Mr. Quintero was not a “supplemental
claim,” or one for “damages discovered in the covered reconstruction and repair”
of the property. The Milhommes’ claim addressed the original casualty event and
the amounts contended to be necessary to repair and restore the direct physical loss
to the covered property.
We distinguish Slayton and decline to apply it here for the reasons we have
explained in Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Co., Case No. 3D16-1681
(Fla. 3d DCA, slip op. August 30, 2017), and Francis v. Tower Hill Prime
Insurance Co., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1565 (Fla. 3d DCA July 12, 2017).1
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
1 Neither of these decisions was available to the trial court when it considered and
ruled upon Tower Hill’s motion for final summary judgment.
3