One of the biggest frustrations property owners face after a major loss is being told they cannot recover the full value of their claim until repairs are completed—even though the insurance company has not paid them enough money to allow those repairs.  It's an awful Catch 22.

Thankfully, a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida recognizes the unfairness of that situation.

In Riva Del Lago Condominium Association v. Steadfast Insurance Company, the court refused to allow an insurance company to simultaneously fail to pay in accordance with its own policy then turn around and use the policy to refuse money owed on the claim. 

The Catch Many Policyholders Face

Many Florida property insurance policies provide replacement cost coverage, but the payment process typically occurs in stages.

First, the insurer pays the actual cash value (ACV) of the covered damage. Then, after repairs are completed, the insurer pays the remaining replacement cost value (RCV).  We have explained this distinction between ACV and RCV previously in the context of “matching” materials when making repairs. 

On paper, that process seems straightforward.

But what happens if the insurance company never pays enough ACV to allow the repairs to begin?  As we have reported before, insurance companies often try to argue the amount of ACV they owe initially on the claim is far less than it actually is. 

From the court's reaction, it appears that is exactly what the insurance company tried to do in Riva.  Thankfully, the court shut it down. 

The Court's Common-Sense Reasoning

The insurance company, Steadfast, argued that because Riva had not completed repairs to portions of the property, it could not seek replacement cost (RCV) damages.

The court disagreed.

Relying on the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal's recent decision in Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA, 2026), the court explained that when an insurer is alleged to have materially breached its contract by failing to make the payments required under the policy, it cannot then rely on those same payment provisions to reduce the damages available to the policyholder. 

As the court recognized, a breach of contract case asks what the insurer would have owed had it honored the policy from the beginning—not simply what payments were due after repairs happened to be completed. 

Read the full opinion:

Riva Del Lago Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-1065-KCD-KRH

Why Riva Is Significant

Perhaps the most important part of the decision is that Steadfast did not completely deny the claim.  Instead, it paid a small portion of the loss while concluding that most of the claimed damage fell below the policy's deductible.  The policyholder was arguing this determination—that the damage was far less than the evidence showed—breached the insurance policy and that once Steadfast breaches its own policy, it is then prevented from trying to enforce the policy against the homeowner.   

The court agreed in finding the relevant question was not whether Steadfast paid some small amount on the claim.  Rather, the question was whether the insurance company breached the policy by relying on an inaccurate coverage decision to withhold additional monies owed on the claim.  In other words, wrongfully underpaying a covered claim can create the same contractual consequences as denying it outright. 

What This Means for Florida Property Owners

Every insurance claim is different, and every policy contains unique language.

Still, Riva reinforces an important principle of Florida contract law: an insurance company generally cannot benefit from its own alleged breach.

If an insurer fails to make the payments required under the policy, courts are increasingly recognizing that it may not later rely on payment conditions that its own conduct prevented the policyholder from satisfying.

If any of this feels confusing and complex, that is intentional.  Insurance companies often strive to make their policies complicated and overwhelming so policyholders don't know how to fight back.  If you are dealing with an insurance claim and feel you are being treated unfairly by your insurance company, this Riva opinion is a good indication you might be right and you should contact an experienced insurance dispute attorney to review your claim and help guide you.  At TWWHB, our attorneys are here to help you—the homeowner.  We never charge any fee, cost, or obligation to simply review your claim and answer your questions.  Contact us today.