In a win for Florida policyholders, the recent appellate decision in Brito v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. shines a spotlight on a tactic we've seen far too often: insurance companies wrongfully denying coverage, then using policy fine print to argue they do not have to pay for full repair costs until you first pay out-of-pocket to complete the repairs.  This is a costly obligation many homeowners are simply not in a financial obligation to fulfill and it is the precise reason they bought insurance.  Thankfully, the appellate court in this case told Citizens it cannot deny coverage then attempt to use the policy's payment provision in its favor.

Let's break down what happened—and why it matters if you're fighting your insurance company after a storm, fire, or any covered loss.

At Trial: Citizens Denied the Claim But Limited the Damages to Actual Cash Value

The homeowners (“Brito”) had a replacement-cost homeowners insurance policy with Citizens. That means their policy required Citizens to pay the cost to restore their home to its pre-loss condition, rather than just pay its value as it sat after the loss—damaged and un-repaired.  This difference is known as replacement cost value (“RCV”) versus actual cash value (“ACV”). 

After roof damage in 2021, Brito made a claim.  Citizens denied the claim entirely, arguing the damage wasn't covered and forcing Brito to sue Citizens for breach of contract to recover the RCV they were entitled under the policy.  However, Citizens was able to convince the trial court to limit the damages to ACV—meaning, the value of the property damaged, not repaired, which is significantly less than the RCV, the cost to restore the property, to which Brito was entitled.

On Appeal: Citizens Cannot Breach the Policy Then Use it to Their Advantage

Thankfully, Florida's Second District of Appeal saw the injustice here.  The appellate court reversed the trial court's directed verdict in Citizens's favor and explained that when an insurance company denies coverage entirely, it cannot then fall back on the policy's payment clause—which applies to covered claims and allows insurance companies to withhold the RCV payment until repairs are completed.

The court advised this unfair tactic would force policyholders to fund and endure two separate lawsuits—one to prove the damage is covered, and another later (after the repairs are completed) to recover the full RCV that is owed under the policy.  That's not justice, and it's not how contracts—or common sense—work.  We are grateful for the appellate court's keen application of the law to the facts in rendering this opinion in support of policyholders' rights.

Read the full opinion Brito v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 4646 (Fla. 2d DCA, Jun. 18, 2025)

Why This Matters to You: Leveling the Playing Field

At Taylor, Warren, Weidner, Hancock & Barnes, we see these tactics used time and again.  Homeowners are often left strapped after hurricanes, hailstorms, or fires have damaged their home or business—only to find their insurance company suddenly playing by a different set of rules.  The message: If your insurance company denies coverage, they don't get to use the policy's repair-payment clauses to block your right to full compensation. The law is on your side—and so are we.  If you are fighting with your insurer, we're here to help you hold them accountable, just like the homeowners in Brito did.  Contact us.

We don't work for the insurance companies. We work for you.