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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
