Legal Opinion

Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 3, 2013No. SC11-1643PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPariente, J.

The issue in this case concerns the scope of replacement cost insurance coverage under the applicable provisions of the 2008 Florida Statutes. In Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., 99 So.3d 502, 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), the Third District Court of Appeal concluded that Florida Peninsula Insurance Company was not required by either its replacement cost homeowner’s insurance policy or the applicable provisions of section 627.7011, Florida Statutes (2008), to pay Amado Trinidad, its insured, costs for a general contractor’s overhead and profit because Trinidad did not repair or contract…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Allstate Ins. Co. v. KaklamanosSupreme Court of Florida · 2003
  2. Daniels v. Florida Dept. of HealthSupreme Court of Florida · 2005
  3. Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. JASupreme Court of Florida · 2007
  4. Fayad v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2005
  5. Woodham v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 2002

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. James R. Allen v. United Services Automobile AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2015
  2. Jermaine D. English v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 2016
  3. Jessica Singleton v. Elephant Insurance ComCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2020
  4. Visiting Nurse Association of Florida, Inc. v. Jupiter Medical CenterSupreme Court of Florida · 2014
  5. Gary G. Debaun v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 2017

42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API