Jurisdiction: Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Case No.: 2D2024-1340
Lower Tribunal: Circuit Court for Pasco County
Date: October 24, 2025
Lower Court Judge: Hon. Alicia Polk
In Clifton and Valona Weston v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s directed verdict for Universal, holding that factual disputes about roof damage and coverage should have gone to a jury.
The Westons’ roof was damaged in a 2020 storm. Universal determined that only twenty-two shingles required replacement and issued a payment of just $89.65 after the deductible. The homeowners’ own estimates showed extensive damage requiring full roof replacement under the Florida Building Code’s 25% rule.
The appellate court ruled that the trial court erred in excluding the homeowners’ evidence and emphasized that issues of scope, cost, and coverage are questions for the jury not matters to be decided on directed verdict.
Background
The Westons’ all-risks homeowner’s policy included both replacement cost and ordinance or law coverage, requiring the insurer to pay the cost of repairs triggered by any building code requirement.
Despite this, Universal insisted it had fulfilled its obligations after paying its field adjuster’s minimal estimate.
When the trial court sided with Universal, the Westons appealed, arguing that the policy language, §627.7011, Fla. Stat., and their expert’s testimony supported broader coverage.
Similar statutory interpretation issues have appeared in other Boltz Legal Case Corners, such as Florida’s Bad-Faith Insurance Claim Retroactivity: Cindy Vo and Akeyia Watts v. Edison Insurance Company, both emphasizing the importance of proper policy application.
Key Legal Issues
1. What Counts as Actual Cash Value (ACV)?
The trial court found that the Westons’ estimate was not an ACV estimate because it included matching costs and code compliance expenses.
However, the appellate court held that because the policy explicitly contained ordinance and law coverage, those costs were part of the ACV under the policy terms.
This reasoning echoes findings discussed in Florida Homeowners Insurance Crisis Analysis, where coverage was expanded due to code mandated repair requirements.
2. When Must Insurers Pay Replacement Costs?
The court rejected Universal’s claim that it owed no further payments until the Westons actually replaced their roof.
Under §627.7011(3)(a) and the policy’s loss settlement clause, insurers must pay the ACV up front and any remaining replacement costs as work is performed and expenses incurred.
When coverage is denied entirely as it was here policyholders are not required to pre-fund repairs before suing. This principle aligns with Brito v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp. and analysis in Navigating the Storm: Protecting Homeowners from Insurance Malpractices in Florida.
3. Pre Suit Estimates and Procedural Compliance
Universal argued that the Westons never provided a valid ACV estimate before suing. The appellate court dismissed that argument, finding no such requirement in the policy.
As reinforced by Florida’s DOAH Arbitration Disaster: How Citizens Is Stripping Policyholders of Their Rights, insurers cannot invent procedural barriers that deny insureds their day in court.
The Appellate Court’s Holding
The Second District reversed the directed verdict, remanding for a new trial.
The court found that:
- The trial judge improperly took factual issues from the jury.
- Evidence regarding the 25% rule, matching, and code compliance was relevant to valuation.
- The Westons’ pre-suit submission of estimates met their contractual obligations.
The court concluded that Universal’s narrow interpretation of ACV and premature denial of coverage constituted legal error.
Practical Takeaways
- Factual disputes belong to the jury. As in McLane Foodservice, Inc. v. Elizabeth Wool, appellate courts consistently protect the jury’s role.
- Code compliance costs are covered. Ordinance or law provisions require insurers to pay for building code triggered repairs.
- Insurers must pay fairly. Similar to Garrett Buis and Misty Buis v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, underpayment on clear coverage can lead to reversal.
- Coverage denials can be challenged immediately. Homeowners are not forced to complete repairs before litigating.
- Transparency protects both sides. In line with Florida Insurance Market Instability in 2024, maintaining clarity in the claims process benefits insurers and policyholders alike.
Related Boltz Legal Articles
- Florida’s Bad-Faith Insurance Claim Retroactivity: Cindy Vo
- Akeyia Watts v. Edison Insurance Company
- Florida Homeowners Insurance Crisis Analysis
- Navigating the Storm: Protecting Homeowners from Insurance Malpractices in Florida
- Florida’s DOAH Arbitration Disaster: How Citizens Is Stripping Policyholders of Their Rights
Why This Case Matters
This appellate decision strengthens homeowner protections by reaffirming that insurers cannot dictate repair scope or redefine coverage to their advantage.
Like other recent rulings featured in Florida’s Insurance Crisis: Hidden Profits Amid Rising Premiums, it demonstrates growing judicial intolerance toward underpayment and premature denials.
The outcome in Weston ensures that the jury not the insurer decides what truly constitutes fair payment for covered losses under Florida law.
Today’s Insight
“Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.”