Greenaker, Greenaker v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company

── Greenaker, Greenaker v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT HAROLD GREENAKER and LISA GREENAKER, Appellants, v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 2D2024-1964 May 8, 2026 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emily Ann Peacock, Judge. Mark A. Nation of The Nation Law Firm, Longwood, for Appellants. David A. Noel and Kara Rockenbach Link of Link & Rockenbach, PA, West Palm Beach, for Appellee. ATKINSON, Judge. Harold and Lisa Greenaker (the Greenakers) appeal the trial court's final judgment in favor of their property insurer, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal). The Greenakers argue on appeal that the trial court erred by granting Universal's motion in limine to exclude all the Greenakers' evidence of damages and by utilizing the motion as a substitute for a motion for summary judgment with the effect of disposing of the Greenakers' case before trial. We reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Universal issued a property insurance policy to the Greenakers that provided building coverage for "direct physical loss" at "replacement cost without deduction for depreciation," subject to certain exceptions not relevant to this appeal. In the loss settlement provision, the policy also provided the timing in which such "[c]overed property losses are settled": "[Universal] will initially pay at least the actual cash value of the insured loss, less any applicable deductible. [Universal] will then pay any remaining amounts necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred." See also § 627.7011(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020) ("In the event of a loss for which a dwelling . . . is insured on the basis of replacement costs . . ., the insurer must initially pay at least the actual cash value of the insured loss, less any applicable deductible. The insurer shall pay any remaining amounts necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred."). The Greenakers sued Universal, alleging that their home sustained damage from a storm in November 2020. They further alleged that they provided Universal with an estimate documenting "covered damages . . . for replacement cost value and actual cash value" but that Universal breached the contract by "refus[ing] to pay for all [their] damages." In its second amended answer and affirmative defenses, Universal admitted that it "partially extended coverage and issued a payment" pursuant to the policy. Universal also raised several affirmative defenses invoking 2 policy exclusions that precluded coverage for any damages incurred within the scope of those exclusions. Universal subsequently moved in limine to prevent the Greenakers from introducing evidence at trial concerning both the actual cash value and the replacement cost value of the loss. Universal argued that because the Greenakers "did not complete repairs at the subject property or incur expenses in repairing the allegedly damaged property prior to suit, . . . they cannot show entitlement to replacement cost value, and are limited to actual cash value as their measure of damages." Nevertheless, Universal also argued that the Greenakers could not introduce any evidence of actual cash value because they had "not presented any testimony or evidence during discovery concerning the actual cash value of the loss" and instead "provided a replacement cost value estimate for work that had not been performed." In response, the Greenakers filed a copy of a written repair estimate prepared by their general contractor. The estimate contained several line i