To Recover Appraisal Award Insured Must Actually Repair or Replace
Post 4855
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfAhbDWD, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gqwD6tSa and at https://lnkd.in/gHaWy4UM, and at https://zalma.com/blog and more than 4850 posts.
Cresthaven appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for relief from the court’s order dismissing without prejudice Cresthaven’s suit against Empire Indemnity Insurance Company (“Empire”) and for leave to file a supplemental complaint.
In Cresthaven Ashley Master Association, Inc. v. Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, No. 23-12761, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 7, 2024) the Eleventh Circuit resolved the dispute.
FACTS
Cresthaven, a condominium association, purchased a commercial property policy from Empire for a period covering March 17, 2017 to March 17, 2018 (the “Policy”). On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma struck the state of Florida. Cresthaven timely filed a claim with Empire for property damages sustained in the storm, which Empire denied on April 19, 2019.
Cresthaven’s Complaint, filed on July 15, 2019, sought a declaratory judgment that it did not breach its post loss duties, as well as the enforcement of the Policy’s appraisal provision and damages for breach of contract. Over the next three years, the parties conducted an appraisal and Cresthaven received two awards for property damages.
Empire a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction arguing that Cresthaven’s case no longer presented an actual Case or Controversy under Article III. The Court granted Empire’s motion on March 24, 2022.
March 24, 2022 Dismissal Order
Cresthaven needed to first identify an applicable law or ordinance that, if enforced, could result in a loss in value to the undamaged portion of the building or an increased cost to reconstruct any portion of the building, whether damaged or not. Second, the applicable law or ordinance needed to be enforced. Third, the applicable ordinance or law must have resulted in the aforementioned “loss in value” or “increased cost”. Cresthaven failed to satisfy any of the three preconditions.
The Court dismissed Cresthaven’s claims for failing to present an actual Case or Controversy.
Post-Dismissal Events
Cresthaven diligently commenced and completed repairs for several of its structures. Cresthaven never completed repairs or completed them timely to recover benefits under the Replacement Cost coverage under Empire’s Policy. Empire effectively invoked the five year statute of repose for property insurance claims under Fla. Stat. §95.11(2)(e).
DISCUSSION
Empire never waived its right to invoke the statute of repose. Without evidence that Empire represented that it would not invoke the statute of repose, the Eleventh Circuit could not conclude that the district court abused its discretion in declining to attribute bad faith to Empire’s communications about adjusting the claim with Cresthaven after the dismissal.
Empire’s written waiver was very specific and waived only the “as soon as reasonably possible” and the two-year deadline with respect to repairs, the temporal limitations that appeared in the Policy itself.
Empire’s July 8, 2022, letter invited Cresthaven to complete repairs and submit requests for payment. The fact that Empire did invoke the five-year statute of repose after its expiration merely indicates that Empire intended to exercise its rights under the Policy provisions and the law, which intention was apparent from the very inception of Cresthaven’s claim.
Empire’s waiver of two very specific rights is not a basis on which to infer a waiver of all rights.
The Policy provisions required Cresthaven to perform the work and identify the relevant ordinance before seeking reimbursement and the district court still would have granted the motion.
ZALMA OPINION
Waiver is a legal concept that allows parties to agree that certain conditions of a contract of insurance will not apply as long as it is knowingly made without coercion. Empire waived two rights provided to it in the policy. That was all it waived, nothing more, and it certainly did not waive the Statute of Repose, which, when it expired destroyed the entire lawsuit and arguments of Cresthaven. An insured should never sit on its rights.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Concurrent Cause Doctrine Does Not Apply When all Causes are Excluded
Post 5119
Death by Drug Overdose is Excluded
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geQtybUJ and at https://lnkd.in/g_WNfMCZ, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Southern Insurance Company Of Virginia v. Justin D. Mitchell, et al., No. 3:24-cv-00198, United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division (October 10, 2024) Southern Insurance Company of Virginia sought a declaratory judgment regarding its duty to defend William Mitchell in a wrongful death case pending in California state court.
KEY POINTS
1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted in part and denied in part.
2. Duty to Defend: The court found that the Plaintiff has no duty to defend William Mitchell in the California case due to a specific exclusion in the insurance policy.
3. Duty to Indemnify: The court could not determine at this stage whether the Plaintiff had a duty to ...
GEICO Sued Fraudulent Health Care Providers Under RICO and Settled with the Defendants Who Failed to Pay Settlement
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDpGzdR9 and at https://lnkd.in/gbDfikRG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Post 5119
Default of Settlement Agreement Reduced to Judgment
In Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico Indemnity Company, Geico General Insurance Company, and Geico Casualty Company v. Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D., DEO Medical Services, P.C., and Healthwise Medical Associates, P.C., No. 24-CV-5287 (PKC) (JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (July 9, 2025)
Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Company and other GEICO companies (“GEICO”) sued Defendants Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D. (“Onyema”), et al (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging breach of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties to resolve a previous, fraud-related lawsuit (the “Settlement Agreement”). GEICO moved the court for default judgment against ...
ZIFL – Volume 29, Issue 14
Post 5118
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geddcnHj and at https://lnkd.in/g_rB9_th, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
You can read the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://lnkd.in/giaSdH29
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
The Historical Basis of Punitive Damages
It is axiomatic that when a claim is denied for fraud that the fraudster will sue for breach of contract and the tort of bad faith and seek punitive damages.
The award of punitive-type damages was common in early legal systems and was mentioned in religious law as early as the Book of Exodus. Punitive-type damages were provided for in Babylonian law nearly 4000 years ago in the Code of Hammurabi.
You can read this article and the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ZIFL-07-15-2025.pdf
Insurer Refuses to Submit to No Fault Insurance Fraud
...
Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
CASE OVERVIEW
In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.
FACTS
Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.
Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:
1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.
Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
