After an unsuccessful attempt to prove to a jury that Plaintiff was entitled to Overhead and Profit during trial, Plaintiff sought a directed verdict on the issue of whether she was entitled to Overhead and Profit as a matter of law. In Brown v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. (“Universal”) issued a payment to Ms. Brown pre-suit at actual cash value. Universal’s payment did not include any amount for Overhead and Profit. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming Universal breached the policy of insurance and owed her additional money, including funds for Overhead and Profit.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial. During the trial, Plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on the issue of Overhead and Profit. After hearing argument on the motion, the trial court reserved ruling and allowed the parties to present the issue to the jury. The jury ultimately did not find that Universal breached the policy and therefore awarded Plaintiff $0.00. After trial, Plaintiff renewed her motion for directed verdict and also moved for a new trial. She argued that the trial court erred by not granting her motion for directed verdict as it related to Overhead and Profit.
Kimberly A. Salmon, Esq. wrote the response to Plaintiff’s renewed motion. Mrs. Salmon argued that Plaintiff was only entitled to the actual cash value of the loss, which does not include Overhead and Profit. Because the policy provided for replacement cost coverage (which includes Overhead and Profit) only when necessary repairs are made and expenses are incurred, Mrs. Salmon contended that Plaintiff was not entitled to Overhead and Profit since no repairs had been made and no related expenses were incurred.
The matter proceeded to a hearing on August 14, 2025. Joseph A. Matera, Esq. appeared on behalf of Universal. The judge heard arguments from both parties. Mr. Matera argued that the Trinidad decision—heavily relied on by Plaintiff—was superseded by statute. In Trinidad, the Supreme Court of Florida held that insureds were entitled to Overhead and Profit where they were reasonably likely to need a general contractor for the repairs. However, Mr. Matera noted that Trinidad was based on both a statute and a policy that required the insurer to pay replacement cost value regardless of whether repairs had been completed. In contrast, the statute and policy at issue in Brown only provided for replacement cost payments after repairs were completed and expenses were incurred, as also noted in Mrs. Salmon’s response.
After Mrs. Salmon and Mr. Matera submitted a supplemental brief and both parties filed proposed orders, the trial court issued its ruling. On August 22, 2025, the court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Directed Verdict in Accordance with Prior Motion for Directed Verdict and Motion for New Trial.
Congratulations to Universal!