October 16, 2025
ShareKelley Kronenberg Secures Appellate Victory in Option to Repair Case
Kelley Kronenberg Partner Kimberly Fernandes, Partner/Business Unit Leader Jordan Lande, and Chair of the firm’s First-Party Property and Insurance Coverage Division Jeffrey Wank secured an important appellate victory when the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of their insurance carrier client in a case establishing critical precedent regarding option to repair provisions.
The case involved a homeowners’ property damaged by a windstorm on January 10, 2022. The carrier immediately began investigating after the insureds reported the claim on February 17, 2022. Within weeks, on March 17, 2022, the carrier accepted full coverage for the loss, admitted complete liability, and timely invoked the Option to Repair provision of the policy to perform a full roof replacement and all repairs associated with the loss.
Significantly, no part of the claim was denied. The carrier’s estimate and the insureds’ own estimate submitted through their public adjuster included the identical scope of repairs—a full roof replacement. There was no dispute over what needed to be repaired.
Despite the carrier’s acceptance of coverage and multiple attempts to coordinate the repair process, the insureds and their representatives failed to respond. The carrier sent numerous follow-up correspondences on March 17, April 6, April 25, May 11, June 6, July 12, August 23, and August 26, 2022, all outlining that coverage was provided and requesting cooperation to begin repairs with the selected contractor. Each correspondence warned that further coverage could be denied for lack of cooperation.
At one point, the insureds’ public adjuster informed the carrier’s representatives they would “fight having to use the Option to Repair contractor.” The insureds refused to accept certified letters, did not respond to emails or phone calls, and did not authorize their public adjuster to respond. Instead of allowing the repairs to proceed, they filed a breach of contract lawsuit on September 15, 2022.
Jordan and Jeffrey filed a Motion for Summary Final Judgment arguing that the insureds’ failure to comply with the properly invoked Option to Repair provision constituted a material breach of the policy. They presented undisputed evidence that the carrier had fulfilled all its obligations by accepting coverage, admitting liability, and repeatedly attempting to coordinate the repair process.
The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment on June 16, 2024, finding that the carrier’s contractual Option to Repair was “a legitimate means of compliance with all payment obligations for a covered loss” and that the insureds “refused to comply with the express terms and provisions of the Policy, thereby prejudicing” the carrier. The court found as a matter of law that the carrier was not in breach of contract.
Subsequently, Plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate team, led by Kim, Jordan, and Jeffrey, successfully defended the trial court’s ruling, demonstrating that Florida law firmly supports the validity of option to repair provisions and that the insureds cannot circumvent these provisions through non-cooperation when coverage has been accepted and the scope of repairs is undisputed.
On September 11, 2025, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam affirmance, upholding the trial court’s summary judgment in its entirety. This concise ruling indicated the appellate panel found no error in the lower court’s legal analysis or factual findings.
This appellate victory further supports important precedent that insurers who properly and timely invoke option to repair provisions after accepting coverage cannot be held liable for breach of the insurance contract when insureds refuse to cooperate, or outright prevent, the repair process. The case reinforces that option to repair provisions are material and enforceable under Florida law and that insured cooperation is a material term of the insurance contract.
For carriers, this decision provides crucial support for the use of option to repair provisions as a cost-effective claims resolution method and confirms that insureds who obstruct the repair process breach their policy obligations, barring recovery even when coverage is undisputed.
Read the Court’s opinion: https://www.kelleykronenberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Opinion-Disposition.pdf
Learn more about the firm’s First-Party Property and Coverage Division; click here: https://www.kelleykronenberg.com/our-practices/first-party-insurance-defense-coverage-bad-faith/
Read our First-Party Property newsletter: https://www.kelleykronenberg.com/category/newsletter/