As many of you know, on October 23, 2019, the Third District Court of Appeals released their opinion in Glendys Vazquez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (hereinafter "Vazquez"). This opinion contained some drastic and far reaching implications with regards to the application of Section 626.9744, Florida Statutes, more colloquially referred to as the “Matching Statute,” as it relates to calculations of payment for replacement cost value versus actual cash value on claims.
On April 24, 2019, we posted about the Third District Court of Appeals decision in Jose Alvarez and Hilda Alvarez v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company ("Alvarez"). Since then, we have seen, for lack of a better term in today’s climate, an epidemic of reliance on this case where insurance carriers and their counsel utilize it for the proposition that an overinflated estimate is de facto fraud/material misrepresentation. Let me make this perfectly clear: Alvarez stands for nothing of the sort.