There are countless circumstances immediately following a loss that necessitate emergency mitigation services. Common examples of what are known as “reasonable emergency measures” include tarping a roof to prevent further water intrusion, performing dry out services, or any number of temporary repairs aimed at preventing further loss or damage. While policyholders have a self-evident interest in ensuring these measures take place (they want to protect their home/property), it is also consistently required under homeowners insurance policies. This is due in large part to practically all policies containing one version or another of the following provision:

IN CASE OF A LOSS TO COVERED PROPERTY, YOU MUST TAKE REASONABLE EMERGENCY MEASURES SOLELY TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY FROM FURTHER DAMAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. EXCEPT FOR REASONABLE EMERGENCY MEASURES, THERE IS NO COVERAGE FOR REPAIRS THAT BEGIN BEFORE THE EARLIER OF: (A) 72 HOURS AFTER WE ARE NOTIFIED OF THE LOSS, (B) THE TIME OF LOSS INSPECTION BY US, OR (C) THE TIME OF OTHER APPROVAL BY US.

This comes as no surprise to most individuals. Policyholders want to protect their property, and insurance companies want to limit their exposure. Issues arise, however, when the cost to implement these reasonable emergency measures becomes significant. This is directly attributable to the relatively low policy limits provided for such measures. This was precisely the case in All Insurance Restoration Services, Inc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.1 In this case, the insureds sustained water damage when the plumbing source to their refrigerator leaked. At the time of the loss, the property was insured by a homeowners policy issued by Citizens. Under the policy, following a loss, the Insureds had a duty to “[t]ake reasonable emergency measures that are necessary to protect the covered property from further damage, as provided under Additional Coverage.”2 As to reasonable emergency measures, the Insureds’ homeowners policy stated as follows:

F. Additional Coverages [**2] . . . .

2. Reasonable Emergency Measures

a. We will pay up to the greater of $3,000 or 1% of your Coverage A limit of liability for the reasonable costs incurred by you for necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property from further damage, when the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against.

b. We will not pay more than the amount in a. above, unless we provide you approval within 48 hours of your request to us to exceed the limit in a. above. In such circumstance, we will pay only up to the additional amount for the measures we authorize.

If we fail to respond to you within 48 hours of your request to us and the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against, you may exceed the amount in a. above only up to the cost incurred by you for the reasonable emergency measures necessary to protect the covered property from further damage.

The Insureds then hired All Insurance Restoration Services “(AIRS”) to perform water mitigation services, and the Insureds assigned their benefits under the homeowners policy to AIRS. AIRS completed the services and notified Citizens of their claim on the same day.

Thereafter, AIRS sent an email to Citizens, attaching AIRS’ “water mitigation package,” which included, among other things, the assignment of benefits and an invoice for $7,238.75 for the water mitigation services. Citizens then sent a letter to AIRS, enclosing a check for $3,000 towards the reasonable emergency measures limit of liability portion of the loss. The letter unsurprisingly referred AIRS to the policy terms contained in Additional Coverages, specifically the requirement that notice be provided before exceeding the policy limit for reasonable emergency measures.

Citizens then refused to honor AIRS’ request for full payment of the water mitigation package and filed suit. Citizens moved for summary judgment, arguing that AIRS never made a request to exceed the policy limit for reasonable emergency measures and, therefore, the undisputed facts precluded judgment as a matter of law. The trial court’s ruling was direct and straightforward, granting Citizens’ motion and stating as follows:

Defendant has fully satisfied its obligations under the insurance policy by paying the $3,000.00 Reasonable Emergency Measures policy limit. Plaintiff failed to meet its burden to show that Defendant breached the terms of the insurance Policy.

The Court finds that as a matter of law, Plaintiff failed to make a request to obtain approval from Defendant to exceed the $3,000.00 Reasonable Emergency Measures policy limit. There was nothing in the email to Defendant on November 29, 2017, requesting approval to perform work in excess of $3,000.00. Under the plain and ordinary meaning of the Policy provision, a demand for payment in excess of $3,000.00 via an invoice for services that have already been completed is not a request to exceed the Reasonable Emergency Measures policy limit.3

AIRS appealed the ruling. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling and reasoned:

AIRS’s email and submission of the invoice is nothing more than a demand for payment for services already rendered. Seeking payment of an invoice for services already rendered does not equate to requesting authorization to exceed the $3,000 limit. Therefore, although Citizen is required to respond within forty-eight hours to a request to exceed the $3,000 limit for reasonable emergency measures, it is not required to respond to a demand for payment of an invoice for reasonable emergency measures already rendered to an insured. As such, the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of Citizens and against AIRS because under the unambiguous language in the insurance contract, Citizens satisfied its contractual obligations when it submitted the $3,000 check to AIRS. See Certified Priority Restoration v. Universal Ins. Co. of N. (addressing identical policy language as in the instant case, and concluding that the record shows that the insurer was entitled to final summary judgment where Certified Priority Restoration (‘CPR’) ‘failed to request the insurer allow it to exceed the $3,000 limit before submitting the invoice for the completed [water [**9] mitigation] work,’ and where ‘the insurer paid $3,000 to CPR’); see also Certified Priority Restoration v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 9878, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1546, *2 (Fla. 4th DCA June 30, 2021). Accordingly, we affirm the final summary judgment entered in favor of Citizens.

The moral of the story is simple: The policy requires that reasonable emergency measures be taken to protect the property. Policyholders have an interest in doing so independent of this duty. Reasonable emergency measures can be a significant expense, and most policies provide avenues for obtaining coverage beyond the specified limits. If you or someone you know has complied with those requirements and the insurance company still refuses to cover the full cost of these emergency measures, contact Merlin Law Group.
_____________________________________
1 All Ins. Restoration Servs. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 328 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
2 Id. at 1058.
3 Id. at 1060.