Timothy S. Kazee (Deland, FL) (Property) defended this case twice at trial, resulting in an appeal that reversed and remanded with directions for the trial court to enter final judgment in favor of Security First Insurance Company. The case arose from a claim for “tear out” to replace a cast iron drain. Security First moved for Final Summary Judgment on the issue of whether “tear out” coverage exists under the homeowners insurance contract. Security First argued that the Plaintiffs selected two optional endorsements: (1) a Water Damage Exclusion Endorsement, and (2) a Limited Water Damage Coverage – Discharge or Overflow endorsement. Based upon the Plaintiffs’ insurance selections, the policy covered water loss but not “tear out.” The Plaintiffs argued that the policy was ambiguous and, therefore, provided coverage for “tear out” to replace the drain line, citing Security First Insurance Co. v. Vazquez, 336 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). The trial court granted Plaintiffs competing partial summary judgment. Thereafter, the case proceeded to the first trial at which Plaintiffs admitted they were not disputing water damage payment and provided a new estimate with a new scope of work. Security First objected to the late evidence and moved for mistrial, and the court agreed this was unfair surprise and declared mistrial. During the second trial, Plaintiffs argued that Security First could not pay for water damage then profit from the policy premiums and not pay for claimed “tear out,” and the jury found tear out necessary and awarded damages.
After the trial court denied Security First’s post-trial motions, Security First appealed on several grounds. The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed with Security First that its insurance policy did not cover “tear out” costs and that the judgment must be reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in Security First’s favor, citing in part People’s Tr. Ins. v. Diaz, 411 So. 3d 444 (Fla 5th DCA 2023). After entering judgment in Security First’s favor, the trial court has jurisdiction on Security First’s motion to recover from the Plaintiffs its attorneys’ fees and costs.