final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower
Tribunal No. 12-24437 Barbara Areces, Judge.
Robb, Mason, Coulombe, Buschman & Charbonnet, and Marc
Buschman; Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., and Elizabeth K. Russo,
Office of Lazaro Vazquez, P.A., and Lazaro Vazquez; Lopez
& Best, and Virginia M. Best, for appellees.
LOGUE, LUCK, and LINDSEY, JJ.
Farm Florida Insurance Company appeals the trial court's
final judgment in favor of the insureds, Efrain Xirinachs,
Ericson Xirinachs, and Maureen Ogden. In so doing, State Farm
argues that the trial court erred by not granting summary
judgment or entering a directed verdict. We agree and
February 2006, State Farm issued payment to the insureds for
damages arising out of Hurricane Wilma. The payment totaled
$7, 690.97 for damages to the dwelling, which included
amounts for the full replacement of the house's shingle
roof, repairs to an interior bedroom, and repair of cracked
glass in a jalousie window. It is undisputed that the
insureds cashed the payment check. In late 2006, the insureds
replaced the jalousie windows with impact windows, but did
not replace the roof until approximately ten years later in
January 2010, the insureds submitted a supplemental claim in
the amount of $59, 719.25 for alleged hurricane damage,
including $6, 488.18 for replacement of the shingle roof. The
insureds eventually filed suit against State Farm over the
supplemental claim. The matter came before us in State
Farm Insurance Co. v. Xirinachs, 163 So.3d 559 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2015) (Xirinachs I), where this Court reversed
the trial court's order compelling an appraisal. On
remand, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment based
upon language of Xirinachs I finding that an
appraisal could not be compelled because of the insureds'
failure to comply with post-loss obligations. The trial court
denied summary judgment. Subsequently, at trial, State Farm
moved for directed verdict and the trial court denied the
motion. The jury entered a verdict in favor of the insureds
and State Farm renewed its motion for directed verdict and
moved for a new trial. The trial court denied both. This
Xirinachs I, this Court specifically held that
The Insureds in this case failed to comply with all post-loss
obligations. For example, they failed to produce necessary
documentation and protect the property from further damage as
required by the governing policy. Given their failure to
comply with these obligations, the trial court erred in
Id. at 559-60. Our holding that the insureds failed
to comply with their post-loss obligations, and that this
failure precluded appraisal, became law of the case.
"Under the law of the case doctrine, a trial court is
bound to follow prior rulings of the appellate court as long
as the facts on which such decision are based continue to be
the facts of the case." Francois v. University of
Miami, 185 So.3d 705, 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (citation
omitted). As set forth in Xirinachs I, the insureds
were not entitled to appraisal because they had "failed
to comply with all post-loss obligations." Id.
Under Florida law, "[i]f the insured fails to comply
with a condition precedent before filing suit, its breach is
deemed material, and thus the insurer is relieved of its
duties under the policy." Hunt v. State Farm Fla.
Ins. Co., 145 So.3d 210, 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Based
upon the facts and insurance policy in this case, the
insured's failure to comply with their post-loss
obligations relieved State Farm of any duties under the
policy as to the supplemental claims sought by the insured.
As such, the trial court erred by not granting State
Farm's motion for directed verdict. See St. Johns
River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. ...