holding that the homeowners were not entitled to prejudgment interest on an award for subsurface damages where they had not entered into a contract for subsurface repairs.
How later courts described this case
- holding that the homeowners were not entitled to prejudgment interest on an award for subsurface damages where they had not entered into a contract for subsurface repairs.
- “Because the insurance policy contained a loss settlement provision tracking the language of section 627.707(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2010
- “When Tower Hill denied coverage a valid dispute as to the existence of a covered loss under the insurance policy arose."
- “When [the insurer] denied coverage[,] a valid dispute as to the existence of a covered loss under the insurance policy arose.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON REHEARING
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
We grant the motions for rehearing to the extent that we hereby clarify that our opinion did not reach the issue of attorney fees. See Ulrich v. Eaton Vance Distrib., Inc., 764 So.2d 731, 733 (Fla.2d DCA 2000). The motions are denied in all other respects.