At our firm, we are currently paving a way and establishing a clear, winning blueprint based on holding insureds accountable to the contracts they agreed to and leveraging the law to exclude speculative damage claims. Our litigation strategy is precise and is consistently obtaining victories, at all different stages of litigation upto and through trials. Recently, the First District Court of Appeals provided a decision in Homeowner’s Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Clark, that offers even more favor to our firm’s winning blueprint.
Our success lies in strategic enforcement of policy conditions – particularly the Loss Settlement provision – and exclusion of inadmissible damages based on Replacement Cost Value (“RCV”) when work hasn’t been performed. This approach has not only secured directed verdicts, motions for summary judgment, and final judgments in favor of insurers but also positions Salmon & Salmon as a go-to litigation partner for carriers defending themselves against overreaching claims.
MAKING POLICY TERMS MATTER
Florida law is clear: a policyholder’s recovery is conditioned on compliance with the terms of the policy. One of the most critical provisions is the Loss settlement clause, which delineates an insurer’s obligations in terms of Actual Cash Value (“ACV”) and RCV. As reaffirmed in our recent litigation, insurers owe ACV upfront -less the deductible – but owe RCV only after repairs are performed and expenses are incurred. Despite this, insureds and their attorneys almost always submit RCV based estimates without undertaking repairs or even producing evidence of incurred costs.
In Greenaker v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., we filed a detailed Motion in Limine seeking to preclude the Plaintiff from presenting RCV and matching related damages at trial. Our argument was rooted in both policy language and statutory law, particularly Florida Statute 627.7011(3)(a), which explicitly bifurcates ACV and RCV obligations. The trial court granted our motion, finding that plaintiffs had not completed any repairs before initiating suit and that their estimates did not qualify as ACV evidence. This case exemplifies our tactical approach: we don’t just challenge the evidence – we exclude it before the jury hears it. This prevents prejudice, keeps the trial focused, and aligns with legal contractual standards.
LEGAL PRECEDENT ON OUR SIDE: Vazquez, Qureshi, and Weston
Our courtroom strategy also finds strong backing in appellate authority. The Third DCA in, Vazquez v. Citizens Property Inc. Corp., confirmed that matching costs cannot be recovered under ACV claims and that RCV is only payable when repairs are completed. We use Vazquez not only as binding precedent, but as a persuasive counterpoint to cases like Tio, which plaintiffs often misuse to argue entitlement to full RCV – even when no work has been done.
In Universal Property & Casualty v. Quireshi, the fourth DCA rejected the trial court’s decision to admit RCV evidence for work that hadn’t been performed. It held firmly that estimated cost of unperformed repairs are inadmissible under both the policy and Florida law. This decision wiped out the insured’s trial win and directed the trial court to confine damages strictly to those permitted by policy terms. We cite Qureshi frequently and successfully in similar motions, strengthening our arguments for exclusion of speculative damages.
In Weston v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., we obtained a directed verdict because the Plaintiffs presented no valid ACV estimate – only a broad RCV-based proposal that included matching, code upgrades, and incidental cost unrelated to physical damage. The court concluded that our client had fulfilled its obligations by issuing payment on the only ACV estimate in evidence: its own.
HOMEOWNER’S CHOICE V. CLARK
In March 2025, the First DCA decision, Homeowners Choice v. Clark delivered a significant reinforcement for insurers – and a warning to plaintiffs relying on inflated damage estimates. The Clarks claimed over $500,000.00 in RCV based damages following Hurricane Sally but had not provided sufficient proof of incurred Costs or complied with post-loss duties such as documentation, timely notice, or repairs.
The First DCA reversed a substantial jury verdict, finding that the Clarks failed to meet multiple policy conditions: they didn’t maintain receipts, didn’t promptly notify the insurer of certain losses, didn’t perform repairs beyond roofing, and didn’t justify their claimed fair rental value. Crucially, the court held the insurer was under no obligation to pay RCV without evidence that such expenses had been incurred – a validation of the same argument we make repeatedly in court.
What’s even more important is that this ruling came from the First DCA – an appellate court that had not yet squarely weighed in on this issue. Now that it has, Clark extends the precedent set by Vazquez and Qureshi and helps close any arguments about conflicting appellate interpretations. Across Florida, insurers can now confidently rely on Clark to challenge inflated damage claims that aren’t supported by documentation or tied to actual repairs.
CONCLUSION
We are building a track record – supported by cases like, Weston, Greenaker, and bolstered by appellate decision like Clark, Qureshi, and Vazquez – showing we know how to hold policyholders accountable. Whether it’s via motions in limine, directed verdicts, or motions for summary judgment, we protect insurers from being forced to pay beyond their obligations.