inteRpRetationoF § 489.113andlicenSingRequiRementS
Construction Law Section Chairs: KimberlyKelley – PaskertDiversThompson & AlexSarsfield – Adams & Reese, LLP
Seconddcareverses finaljudgmentinfavor ofinsuredsforfailure tocomplywith electiontorepair.
The Second District Court of Appeal recently reversed a final judgment in favor of insureds who refused to comply with their insurer’ s election to repair. 1 In Abraham, People’ s Trust Insurance Company issued a homeowner’ s insurance policy, which included an endorsement giving People’ s Trust the option to repair covered losses instead of issuing payment directly. 2 The policy designated a general contractor, rapid response Team, LLC( rrT), to perform such repairs. 3 The endorsement also required the insureds to provide access to the property, execute work authorizations, and pay the deductible if the insurer opted to repair. 4
After the insureds submitted a claim for the roof, People’ s Trust inspected the property, accepted coverage, invoked its right to repair, and provided the insureds with a work authorization identifying rrT as the contractor. 5 The insureds refused to sign the authorization, citing concerns that rrT was not a licensed roofing contractor. 6
Unable to proceed with repairs, People’ s Trust filed suit seeking specific performance to compel the insureds’ compliance or, alternatively, for a declaratory judgment establishing the parties’ rights or voiding coverage based
on the insureds’ breach. 7 People’ s Trust moved for summary judgment, and in response, the insureds argued that executing the work authorization would be illegal because rrT was not a certified roofing contractor. 8 The trial court sided with the insureds, holding that compelling them to contract with rrT would violate section 489.113, Florida Statutes— requiring roofing work to be performed by a licensed roofing contractor. 9
The Second District reversed, finding that the trial court misconstrued both the applicable statute and policy language. 10 Section 489.113( 3), Florida Statutes, does not prohibit a general contractor from overseeing roofing work, but simply requires that roofing work be subcontracted to licensed roofing contractors. 11 The court relied on a similar decision from the Fourth District which upheld rrT’ s ability to utilize a licensed subcontractor. 12 The insureds attempted to distinguish this case from Lamolli by asserting that subsection( 9)( a) of the statute is prohibitive. 13 The court rejected this argument, relying on the plain language of the statute which states:“ This part does not prevent any contractor from acting as a prime contractor where the majority of the work to be performed under the contract is within the scope of his or her license or
from subcontracting to other licensed contractors that remaining work which is part of the project contracted.” 14 Because the insureds materially breached the policy by failing to cooperate with the repair election, the Second District reversed the judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the insurer. 15 n
1
People’ s Trust Ins. Co. v. Abraham, 2025 WL 1318688( Fla. 2d DCA May 7, 2025).
2
Id. at * 1.
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Id. at * 2.
7
Id. at * 1.
8
Id. at * 1 – 2.
9
Id.
10
Id. at * 4.
11
Id.; see also Fla. Stat. Ann. § 489.113( West).
12
People’ s Trust Ins. Co. v. Lamolli, 352 So. 3d 890( Fla. 4th DCA 2022).
13
Abraham, 2025 WL 1318688 at * 4.
14
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 489.113( West). 15
Abraham, 2025 WL 1318688 at * 4.
Author: Brian Allen – Carlton Fields, P. A.
1 6 J U LY- A U G 2 0 2 5 | H C B A L A W Y E R