FloridaLawCommentary.com

We are approaching hurricane season in Florida and with recent natural disasters firmly fixed in mind, this case may give some reassurance to homeowners — as long as your carriers do not “go FIGA.”

In Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Willis and Katherine Mathis (First DCA: Van Nortwick, Lewis and Rowe), Hurricane Ivan in 2004 caused damage to the Mathis’ home.  Flood water rose over four feet.  The Mathis family had flood and wind policies.  The flood carrier paid limits.  The windstorm carrier declined to give policy limits.  A suit and trial ensued with a jury finding a constructive or actual total loss warranting policy limits.  The carrier appealed, claiming they were entitled to set off the flood payment.

There is potentially a lot in this case for insurance coverage lawyers.  The bottom line, however, is that the First DCA held that the policies were separate and that the Florida Valued Policy Law (Florida Statute 627.702(1)) did not require set offs.  Thus, the Mathis were to receive $250k (flood) and $295k (wind) on their two story house which had an estimated value between $400-500,000.  Thus, and pardon the pun a homeowner can collect under two separate policies even if there is a “windfall.”

Yes but it is unlikely you will win, particularly in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Back in 2006, a rather dramatic homeowner versus association battle was partially resolved in Berg v. Briddle Path Homeowners Association where the court addressed director and officer statutory immunity under the homeowner statute, Florida Statute Chapter 617.

The same issue arose, but was confronted more directly, in the recent case of Stephen and Marjorie Raphael v. Beach Point Condominium Association (Stevenson, Polen, and Gerber).  In this case, the condo owners were upset that balcony dividers were replaced with transparent dividers, thus reducing their privacy while allegedly improving other condo owners’ view.

To sue the condo board members directly, the plaintiff had to allege that there was fraud, criminal activity or self-dealing in order to overcome the directors’ statutory immunity in Florida Statute 607.831(1) and 617.0834(1).

The Panel held that there was no self-dealing or personal benefit simply because the board members voted for and approved alternations or improvements to the common areas which they, as owners, also enjoyed.