Florida Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Policyholders Seeking Replacement Cost Coverage: What the Brito Decision Means for Your Claim

Florida Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Policyholders Seeking Replacement Cost Coverage: What the Brito Decision Means for Your Claim

July 2025 – By StrubleCohen

If your Florida insurance company has denied your property damage claim or tried to limit your recovery to “actual cash value” rather than full replacement cost, a recent appellate decision may be a game-changer.

In Brito v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., No. 2D2024-0664, 2025 WL 1699788 (Fla. 2d DCA June 18, 2025), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal issued a strong rebuke to an insurer that attempted to block homeowners from presenting their full replacement cost damages at trial—simply because the repairs had not yet been completed.

Key Holding: No Requirement to Complete Repairs Before Filing Suit

The court ruled that when an insurer completely denies coverage, the insured does not need to complete repairs or submit repair receipts before suing for breach of contract or presenting evidence of replacement cost at trial.

This is critical: you are not required to front the money for repairs out-of-pocket just to preserve your right to full replacement cost benefits under your policy.

The Background

The homeowners in Brito filed a claim for roof damage under their replacement cost policy. Citizens denied the claim outright, asserting the loss wasn’t covered. The homeowners sued for breach of contract and sought the full replacement cost for the damages, consistent with both the policy language and Florida Statutes § 627.7011(3).

However, at trial, Citizens persuaded the court to exclude the homeowners' evidence of replacement cost and limit them to actual cash value damages—arguing that since repairs hadn’t been completed, replacement cost wasn't recoverable. The trial court agreed, excluded key evidence, and directed a verdict against the homeowners.

The Reversal: Why the Second DCA Said This Was Wrong

The appellate court reversed, explaining that:

• The policy clearly provided coverage on a replacement cost basis.
• Section 627.7011(3) and the policy’s “split payment” provisions apply only to covered claims—not denied ones.
• Where coverage is denied outright, the insurer cannot then rely on those same provisions to limit its liability at trial.
• The measure of damages in a breach of contract case is what the insured would have received had the insurer not breached the policy—which, in this case, is the replacement cost.

The court also aligned itself with the Third DCA’s decision in Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Tio, rejecting arguments made in conflicting case law such as Vazquez and Qureshi.

Why This Case Matters

This ruling is a powerful tool for policyholders—and their attorneys—facing insurance companies that:

• Deny claims outright and
• Later try to limit recovery to “actual cash value” on a technicality.

The court made it clear: when an insurer wrongfully denies coverage, it cannot force the insured to jump through more hoops before asserting their rights under the policy. That includes presenting full replacement cost estimates in court, even if the work hasn’t been performed yet.

How StrubleCohen Can Help

At StrubleCohen, we represent policyholders across Florida in disputes with their insurance companies. We know the games insurers play—and we stay on top of the latest court rulings to fight for your rights.

If your claim was denied or underpaid, contact us today for a free consultation. You may still be entitled to full replacement cost coverage—even if you haven’t started repairs.

Want help using Brito in your own claim or lawsuit?
📞 Call StrubleCohen at 321-283-5888
📅 Or schedule a free consultation online

‍