Lobell v. Rosenberg

|,1 respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s award of $3,230,162.72 in restoration costs to 2025 Canal St. L.L.C. Although its calculations are not explained in its judgment and reasons for judgment, it appears that the trial judge used the replacement cost figures from the tabulations prepared by the St. Paul’s Travelers (hazard insurance) and Fidelity National (flood insurance) adjusters. The trial court’s utilization of replacement cost as a valuation basis was legal error. See Husband v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 635 So.2d 309 (La.App. 5 Cir.1994). The…