American Coastal Insurance Company v. La Rive Gauche Condominium Association, Inc.

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 18, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D23-0938 Lower Tribunal No. 19-33925

American Coastal Insurance Company, Appellant,

vs.

La Rive Gauche Condominium Association, Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge.

Bickford & Chidnese, LLP and Frieda C. Lindroth, and Patrick M. Chidnese (Tampa), for appellant.

Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, P.L., and Paul B. Feltman, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212,

215 (Fla. 1985) (“[W]hen a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff's out-of-

pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to

prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss.”);

Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)

(“Damages are liquidated when the proper amount to be awarded can be

determined with exactness from the cause of action as pleaded, i.e., from a

pleaded agreement between the parties, by an arithmetical calculation or by

application of definite rules of law.”); Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Trif, 322

So. 3d 663, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[W]e hold that, for post-loss conduct,

the policy requires proof of knowing or intentional fraudulent conduct by the

insureds to trigger the application of the ‘Concealment or Fraud’ provision to

void the policy.”); Citizens Prop. Ins. Co. v. Zamanillo, 388 So. 3d 912, 914

(Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (argument of counsel is not evidence); Trif, 322 So. 3d

at 673 (“[C]ontractors or adjusters may significantly differ in their estimates,

and [the court] cannot presume that one estimate, merely because it is

excessively higher, is rife with fraud.” . . . “Mere overvaluation is not, in the

absence of fraud, such a misrepresentation as will avoid the policy.” (internal

citations omitted); RV-7 Prop., Inc. v. Stefani De La O, Inc., 187 So. 3d 915,

2 916-17 (“Amendments to pleadings ought to be allowed freely unless there

is a clear danger of prejudice, abuse, or futility.” (Emphasis supplied).