Rodriguez v. Amstar Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodriguez v. Amstar Insurance Co.

888 So. 2d 760, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19652, 2004 WL 2955028

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 22, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-846

StatusPublished

This text of 888 So. 2d 760 (Rodriguez v. Amstar Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rodriguez v. Amstar Insurance Co., 888 So. 2d 760, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19652, 2004 WL 2955028 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the dismissal of the class action lawsuit against Amstar Insurance Company. The order states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he language of Amstar’s insurance policy issued to Rodriguez, a copy of which is attached to Rodriguez’s Complaint, allows for the “betterment” deductions taken by Amstar, because the policy limits Amstar’s liability to either cash value or ‘the amount necessary to repair or replace the property with other of like kind and quality, with deduction for depreciation and minus your deductible.’ ” (Emphasis added). We affirm holding that the unambiguous terms of the policy permit Amstar to deduct from its payment to the insured the depreciation of the repaired or replaced parts. Cf. Great Tex. County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 979 S.W.2d 72, 73 (Tex.Ct.App.1998)(deduction for depreciation or betterment not authorized [761]*761where policy requires insurer to “repair or replace the property with other of like kind and quality.”); Foultz v. Erie Ins. Exch., No. 3053-071970, 2002 WL 452115 (Pa.Com.Pl. March 13, 2002)(unpub-lished)(same).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the dismissal of the class action lawsuit against Amstar Insurance Company. The order states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he language of Amstar’s insurance policy issued to Rodriguez, a copy of which is attached to Rodriguez’s Complaint, allows for the “betterment” deductions taken by Amstar, because the policy limits Amstar’s liability to either cash value or ‘the amount necessary to repair or replace the property with other of like kind and quality, with deduction for depreciation and minus your deductible.’ ” (Emphasis added). We affirm holding that the unambiguous terms of the policy permit Amstar to deduct from its payment to the insured the depreciation of the repaired or replaced parts. Cf. Great Tex. County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 979 S.W.2d 72, 73 (Tex.Ct.App.1998)(deduction for depreciation or betterment not authorized [761]*761where policy requires insurer to “repair or replace the property with other of like kind and quality.”); Foultz v. Erie Ins. Exch., No. 3053-071970, 2002 WL 452115 (Pa.Com.Pl. March 13, 2002)(unpub-lished)(same).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

888 So. 2d 760, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19652, 2004 WL 2955028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-amstar-insurance-co-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack